VISHAL BANSAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) Facts as are necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are enumerated here -in -below. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 72 of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as Rs.1968 Act') against Bilaspur District Truck Operators Transport Society Ltd. (Regd.), Barmana, District Bilaspur, H.P., on the ground that he was a member of the said society and had purchased a TATA truck of 1995 model bearing registration No. HP -24 - 3927, which stood attached with the said society since the year 1995. Membership of the respondent -society was opened in the year 1998 and vide membership No. 157/954, he became the member of said society on 24.05.1998 as per the provisions and bye laws of the society and he continues to be a member of the said society. In the said capacity of his, he was being allotted the work of transportation as per the procedure being followed by the society without any hindrance or obstruction, which was abruptly stopped by the society w.e.f. 08.05.2006. The procedure being followed by the respondent -society for allotment of work was based on queue system which was followed by a call (pukar) and volunteers from the queue volunteered for the work. This call (pukar) was made two three times a day as per the demand made by ACC with whom the trucks of the respondent -society were attached. Case of the petitioner was that he was in queue since 2006 and had volunteered for call (pular) every time, but no work was being allotted to him though the same was being allotted to other members of the society and even to those who were not even members of the said society. It was further averred by him that this was being done on the basis of the oral directions issued by the President of the respondent -society. According to the petitioner, he was neither defaulter nor he was suffering from ineligibility for grant of work and, therefore, according to him, he was being discriminated by the petitioner - society in the matter of allotment of work. In these circumstances, he filed the petition under Section 72 of the 1968 Act, wherein he inter alia prayed that the respondent -society be directed to allot work to him as per the bye laws of the society as was being allotted to other similarly situated members of the society.

(3.) Respondent -society filed reply to the said petition. In the preliminary objections, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent - society that the petitioner had not approached the authority with clean hands and had tried to mislead the authority by making false and frivolous allegations. According to the respondent -society, the truck of the petitioner bearing registration No. HP -24 -3927 was attached vide membership No. 157/958. Petitioner had sworn an affidavit dated 29.05.2006 duly attested by Executive Magistrate, Bilaspur, as per which, the membership with regard to truck No. H.P. 24 -3927 commonly known as 'Gatta' was sold by him, i.e. petitioner to one Sh. Paramjeet Singh Thakur and the petitioner had averred in his affidavit that he has no objection for transferring the Gatta of the said vehicle and having the same registered in the name of Sh. Paramjeet Singh Thakur, who was owner of vehicle bearing registration No. HP 24B -6122. It was further mentioned in the reply that the father of the petitioner Sh. Chuni Lal Bansal was member of Managing Committee and he had been assigned the work of Office Incharge of the society. According to the respondent - society, the father of the petitioner had taken the original record pertaining to his and his relatives vehicle illegally and now taking advantage of this fact that the society was not in possession of any record, the petitioner had filed frivolous petition in spite of the fact that he knew very well that he had sold Gatta of his truck in favour of Sh. Paramjeet Singh Thakur and accordingly on the strength of the Gatta so sold to Sh. Paramjeet Singh Thakur, another truck of Sh. Paramjeet Singh Thakur had been entered against the said Gatta sold by the petitioner to him. On merit, the stand of the respondent -society as enumerated in paragraphs No. 5 of the reply is quoted hereinbelow: