High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ravinder Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab & Others on 4 March, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Singh & Others vs State Of Punjab & Others on 4 March, 2009
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH



                                Civil Writ Petition No.3441 of 2009
                                      Date of Decision: March 04, 2009


Ravinder Singh & Others
                                                       .....PETITIONER(S)

                                VERSUS


State of Punjab & Others
                                                  .....RESPONDENT(S)
                            .         .     .


CORAM:            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA


PRESENT: -        Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for the
                  petitioners.


                            .         .     .

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)

Contention of learned counsel for the

petitioners is that respondent Nos.5 to 20 have been

included as members of the Society. The said persons

are not eligible to become members also for the

reason that they do not belong to the area as is

evident from report submitted by the Tehsildar. In

these circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to

issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus with a

direction to cancel the membership of the said

respondents.

Learned counsel has pointed out that

an application was made to the Assistant Registrar

who is required to take notice of such conduct of

the Society, however, no action has been taken.

 CWP No.3441 of 2009                                 [2]



                      Considering       the        facts          and

circumstances of the case, the Assistant Registrar,

Cooperative Societies, Ajnala, is directed to treat

a copy of this petition as a representation and take

a decision in accordance with law within four months

of receipt of copy of this order.

Thereafter, petitioners would be at

liberty to approach the authorities under the Punjab

Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 in case they are

aggrieved. Likewise, the respondents would be at

liberty to approach the authorities in case any

order adverse to their interest is passed.



                                                     (AJAI LAMBA)
March 04, 2009                                          JUDGE
avin