Lal Chand Arora vs State of Haryana

Mehtab Singh Gill, J.—The petitioners filed a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of decision dated 21.12.1999 (Annexure P-4) taken in the meeting of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Haryana and further for quashing show cause notice dated 18.5.2000 (Annexure P-5).

The petitioners have averred that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the elected President and Vice-President of Rohtak Model Cooperative House Building Society, Rohtak (hereinafter called as ''the Society''). The Managing Committee under the management of the petitioners has been performing its duties with diligence and in the interest of the Society. Respondent No. 3, exercising the powers of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana, u/s 14(2) of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), vide letter dated 11.1.1999, amalgamated the petitioners society i.e. Rohtak Model Cooperative House Building Society and the Rohtak Janta Co-operative House Society Limited, Rohtak. The petitioners have come against this amalgamation order.

Notice of motion was issued and written statement was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents and gone through the petition and the annexures attached thereto.

Going through annexures P-4 and P.5, it comes out that respondent No. 3, exercising the powers of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana, had only appointed an Administrator to look after the day to day working of the petitioners society. Annexure P.5 is a show cause notice issued to the petitioners and other members of the Society regarding the dissolution/removal of the Managing Committee u/s 34 of the Act. It was only a show cause notice that as an Administrator has been appointed and further new elections of the Managing Committee of the Society should take place. Various charges were submitted against the Society.

The show cause notice, which was given u/s 34 of the Act was only an opportunity given to the petitioners to apprise the Registrar if they had any objections to this so that they could be considered and final decision be taken by respondent No. 3. If reply had been filed by the petitioners and any decision taken against their interest than they could have gone into appeal u/s 114 of the Act before the Secretary, Cooperative Department, Haryana.

With the above observations, we have come to the conclusion that the petition is premature till a final decision is taken by the Secretary, Cooperative Department, after filing of an appeal u/s 114 of the Act by the petitioners. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed.

Petition dismissed.