IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Contempt Appeal No.4 of 2008 Decided on March 10,2008. Jagjit Singh Gill and another --- Appellants. v. Raj Kumar Kaushal and others ---Respondents. Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Jusice Mehtab S.Gill Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh kumar Jain. Present: Mr. D.V. Sharma,Senior Advocate, with Mr.Rahul Sharma,Advocate, for the appellants Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: Pink Rose Cooperative House Building Society Limited, was allotted land for construction of a multi storeyed residential flats in Sector 49, Chandigarh. Though, the Society was comprised of 413 members, yet at the time of allotment of land, only 151 members were found to be eligible who contributed to the price of the allotted land. In May 2003 since the election of Managing Committee of the Socierty were due, the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chandigarh, notified the election programme vide his letter dated 24.4.2003 starting election process w.e.f.. 7.5.2003. When the process had started, it was found that on the basis of two fabricated resolutions dated 24.4.2003 and 28.4.2003, nine original allottee members were expelled, 25 members had allegedly surrendered their membership and one membershisp was cancelled. Civil Contempt Appeal No.4 of 2008 -2- Vide the same resolutions, substituted members were enrolled in place of expelled/surrendered members, who were either members of the All India Services or other influential persons. Some aggrieved members filed references before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies with a prayer that the original allottee members be allowed to cast their votes in the election of the society. On reference, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, conducted an inquiry through the Director, Information Technology, Chandigarh Administration, who had found the allegations were correct. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies U.T,Chandigarh, vide his order dated 16.3.2004, directed implementation of the inquiry report submitted by the Director Information Technology, U. T, Chandigarh Administration. Consequently, on 23.3.2004, with the prior approval of the Registrar, Administrator of the Society passed resolution Nos. 1 and 2 vide which resolution dated 24.4.2003 and 28.4.2003 were scrapped vide which in place of 35 original allottees substitution was done and expulsion of 10 allottee members vide resolution dated 13.1.2003 and 7.5.2003 was restored. However, due to factual mistake in respect of two original allottee members, who had refunded their membership fee, their names were deleted reducing their strength to 33, but since those 33 members were Civil Contempt Appeal No.4 of 2008 -3- sought to be deprived of their participation in the election process on the pretext that the election process had already started, C.W.P.No.10295 of 2006 was filed, which was allowed on 25.4.2007 in which it was held that it shall be fallacy at this juncture in the writ jurisdiction to uphold Annexures P-20 and P-24 on the ground that since the election process had been started, therefore, the same be not interfered with. It was also held that votor list issued on 14.5.2003 to the exclusion of the petitioner is illegal. Inspite of the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, election was held on 11.6.2007 in which out of 33, 25 original allottee members were not permitted to cast their votes and the person who was elected as the President of the Society was none-else than the one who had entered the Society as substituted members in terms of the resolutions dated 7.5.2003 and 14.5.2003 which have already been declared illegal. This led to the filing of the Contempt Petition No 1048 of 2007 in which vide order dated 26.2.2008, a show cause notice has been issued to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as to why proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act be not issued against them and in the meanwhile, in order to protect the interest of the ordinary members of the Society, election held on 11.6.2007 was stayed. The elected office bearers of the Managing Committee of the Society were restrained from functioning or interfering with the affairs of the Cooperative Society and as an interim measure, The Deputy Commissioner-cum- Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T, Chandigarh, was directed to take over as the Administrator of the Society. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 26.2.2008, present Civil Contempt Appeal No.4 of 2008 -4- appeal has been filed by the President and Vice President of the Society under Section 19 of the Act. .It has been argued by Mr. D.V. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the order of stay has been passed by the Contempt Court behind the back of the appellants and the same is prejudicial to their interest because their election has been stayed and they have been restrained from functioning. The counsel for the appellants was categorically asked as to how an appeal under Section 19 of the contempt of Courts Act, is maintainable if they (appellants) are neither contemners nor any order of punishment has been passed against them. In reply thereto, Mr.D.V.Sharma, Senior Counsel for the appellants cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.N.Dubey v. Bhagyabati Pramanik 2002 (2) R.C.R (Civil) 727. We have gone through the aforeaid judgment and found from para No.13 that the question whether the appeal under Section 19 is maintainable or not, is not decided finally by the Hon'ble Apex Court therein, therefore, the aforesaid judgment does not come to the rescue of the appellants so far as maintainability of the present appeal is concerned. More over, in our view, if the present appellants are aggrieved against the order of the Learned Single Judge vide which the injuntion has been granted restraining them from interfering in the affairs of the Society, which affects their right as they are the elected President and Vice President of the Society, they could have approached the same Court to get their grievances redressed by making an application for becoming a party and by showing cause for vacation of stay against them. Thus, the Civil Contempt Appeal No.4 of 2008 -5- present appeal is not maintainable and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge. March 10,2008 ( Mehtab S.Gill ) RR Judge