SATLUJ COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (COOPERATION), PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petitions bearing Nos. 310 and 312 of 2014 under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 08.08.2013 (Annexure P -4), passed by respondent No.1, in Revision Petition Nos. 20 and 21 of 2012 titled as Santokh Singh Vs. The Addl. Registrar. These writ petitions being disposed of by this single judgment as common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions.

(2.) THE facts are being taken from CWP No. 312 of 2014. The Satluj Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Ludhiana (for short 'Society') is registered under the provisions of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act'). The Management of the society vests in the duly elected Committee members and as per Section 30 of the Act, General Body is the supreme body. The meeting of the General Body was held on 21.08.2005 and the impugned resolution Annexure P -1, was allegedly passed by the General Body of the society. The respondent No.4 Santokh Singh has filed a petition under Rule 80 read with Rule 6 of Appendix -B of Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 for setting aside the resolution dated 21.08.2005. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana dismissed the same as time barred. Respondent No.4 had filed a petition under Section 69 of the Act, which was dismissed as not maintainable by respondent No.2. The respondent No.4 had filed second revision petition under Section 69 of the Act before respondent No.1, who had accepted the said revision petition and had remanded the case to Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana to hear and decide the petition on merits without considering the point of limitation. Hence this writ petition has been filed by the society impugning the order dated 08.08.2013 (Annexure P -4).

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order (Annexure P -4) is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the respondent No.4 had challenged the resolution of the General Body dated 21.08.2005, on 17.02.2011, after a lapse of 05 years and 05 months. The learned counsel further contended that the respondent No.4 has failed to show any sufficient cause to file the case.