Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2482 (PNJ)

Kulwant Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh

2010-08-30

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2010
Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Civil Misc. No. 11950 of 2010 Civil Misc. Application is allowed. Rejoinder to the written statement, filed on behalf of the respondents, is taken on record. Civil Writ Petition No.8801 of 2010. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that order dated 18.2.2010 (Annexure P11), whereby the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, be quashed as the same is without jurisdiction, and the enquiry report dated 25.2.201 (Annexure P14) be not given effect to. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the Chandigarh Administration has allotted the land at subsidized rates to various Cooperative House Building Societies finder the scheme called "Chandigarh Allotment of Land to Co-operative House Building Societies, 1991". 3. Harsimran Kaur, daughter of the petitioner, became a member of the Chandigarh Sector 21 Universal Co-operative House Building 1st Society Limited, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Society"). Her name was included in the list of members for allotment of Category "A" flat, on deposit of an amount of Rs. 1,69,000/- towards the cost of the land. The petitioner averred that subsequently a dispute arose between the office bearers and Managing Committee of the Society and the daughter of the petitioner had gathered an impression that the construction of the flats may not be feasible. Therefore, she got refunded the amount paid towards cost of the land. On. the other hand, case of the respondents is that the daughter of the petitioner facilitated substitution of her membership to one Rekha Sharma. This fact is discernible from notice (Annexure P3), wherein an entry to this effect has been made at serial No. 17. It is the further case of the respondents that after the daughter of petitioner had received the refund and also allowed substitution of her membership in the name of one Rekha Sharma, she, in connivance with the officials of the Chandigarh Co-operative Department, who were appointed as Administrators of the Society, got the allotment and took possession of flat in Category "B", which was rightfully belonged to one Saroj Sharma. The daughter of the petitioner was the member for Category "A" flat, whereas the flat, which was allotted to and possessed by Saroj Sharma, was in Category "B". The daughter of the petitioner was the member for Category "A" flat, whereas the flat, which was allotted to and possessed by Saroj Sharma, was in Category "B". Saroj Sharma made a complaint to the authorities that she was duly allotted flat No. 1176 in Category "B" of the Society and symbolic possession thereof was also handed over to her. She had become a substituted member of the Society being the nominee of late Sh. R.R. Sharma and the Administrators of the Society had allotted flat No. 1176 of category "B" to the daughter of the petitioner but the same could not be done as Sarqj Sharma was the original owner. In the complaint, filed by Sarqj Sharma, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chandigarh, had passed the following order dated 18.2.2010:- "...On the basis of a complaint made by Smt. Sarqj Sharma W/o late Sh. R.R. Sharma, H. No.2158-A, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh, regarding allotment of flat No. 1176 in the Chandigarh Sector-21 Universal Cooperative House Building 1st Society Ltd., Sector 48-B, Chandigarh, I, Brijendra Singh, Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Union Territory, Chandigarh, hereby appoint Capt. P.S.Gill, PCS, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh, as Inquiry Officer to enquire into the matter and submit his findings by 24.02.2010.The case file containing corr. pages, from 1 to 424 and noting portion from 1 to 59 is sent herewith". 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no provision in the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "1961 Act") calling upon the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, to get the complaint enquired as in case there is any dispute regarding the title or possession, a mechanism has been provided under the 1961 Act for redressal of such a grievance. Learned counsel has referred to Section 55 of the 1961 Act and submitted that the appointment of an Arbitrator is the only answer to determine the inter-se dispute between Saroj Sharma and Harsimran Kaur, daughter of the petitioner. 5. A perusal of the allegations, levelled by Saroj Sharma, reveals that she had made a complaint against the conduct of two officials of Department of Co-operative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh, namely Udham Singh and Amarjit Singh, Inspectors, who were appointed as Administrators of the Society, at the relevant time. 5. A perusal of the allegations, levelled by Saroj Sharma, reveals that she had made a complaint against the conduct of two officials of Department of Co-operative Societies, U.T. Chandigarh, namely Udham Singh and Amarjit Singh, Inspectors, who were appointed as Administrators of the Society, at the relevant time. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, being Head of the Department, is bound to hold an enquiry against the conduct of employees/officials of the department and there can be no bar to that. Therefore, Annexure P14 was an enquiry report regarding the conduct of the officials of the Department of Cooperative Societies, Chandigarh, against whom the complaint was made. It is an in-house mechanism which is resorted to by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, by passing an order dated 18.2.2010 (Annexure P11). While looking into the conduct of the officials of the Society, the Enquiry Officer came to a conclusion that not even the record has been fabricated and forged, but the officials have been the accessory to the offence of trespass committed by Harsimran Kaur and her father Kulwant Singh. While examining the conduct of the officials, if an Enquiry Officer comes to a conclusion that a cognizable offence has been made, he is bound to report the matter to the authorities, whose primary duty is to detect a crime and secure punishment for the offenders. 6. Thus, no fault can be found with the enquiry report (Annexure P14) and order (Annexure P11). However, in the enquiry report, it is recommended that criminal action be initiated against the officials of the department and every accused, who had a common intention and prima facie had committed the offence. It is clarified that the same will not be taken as a command of the Enquiry Officer and any official of the Police Department, before acting upon the enquiry report (Annexure P14), will act, in accordance with the provisions of law and will formulate his/her opinion on the facts of the case. 7. With the observations made above, the present writ petition is disposed of.