Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 108 (PNJ)

Kulwant Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh

2011-01-12

GEORGE MASIH, RANJAN GOGOI

body2011
JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjan Gogoi, A.C.J. (Oral):- This appeal is directed against order dated 30.08.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 8801 of 2010 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant has been disposed of with certain directions, details of which will be noticed later on. 2. The brief facts that will be required to be noticed for the purpose of proper adjudication may be set out as under:- 3. According to the appellant-writ petitioner, the Chandigarh Administration had allotted lands at subsidized rates to the various Cooperative House Building Societies under the scheme called “Chandigarh Allotment of Land to Co-operative House Building Societies, 1991”. Further case of the appellant-writ petitioner is that his daughter one Harsimran Kaur became a member of the Chandigarh Sector 21, Universal Co-operative House Building 1st Society Limited, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh and on payment of an amount of Rs.1,69,000/, the name of his daughter was included in the list of the members for allotment under Category- “A”. According to the appellant-writ petitioner as there was a dispute between the office bearers and the Managing Committee of the Society, his daughter had gathered an impression that there would be a delay in construction of the flats. Therefore, she had got refund of the amount paid by her. However, it appears that the daughter of the petitioner got allotment and took possession of a flat in Category-”B” which was initially allotted to one Saroj Sharma. The said flat No. 1176 falls in Category-”B” of the society. The aforesaid Saroj Sharma filed a complaint before the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Chandigarh, who by his order dated 18.02.2010 appointed one Capt. P.S. Shergill, PCS, Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh as the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 25.2.2010 with the following recommendations:- 1. The allotment of flat No. 1176, Category- “B” in the name of Smt. Harsimran Kaur daughter of Kulwant Singh Gill should be cancelled immediately from the name of Smt. Harsimran Kaur and the possession of this flat be handed over to its rightful allottee Smt. Saroj Sharma. 2. Criminal proceedings be initiated against Shri Udham Singh, Inspector and Shri Amarjit Singh, Inspector, Smt. Harsimran Kaur and her father Shri Kulwant Singh Gill under the relevant sections of law. 3. 2. Criminal proceedings be initiated against Shri Udham Singh, Inspector and Shri Amarjit Singh, Inspector, Smt. Harsimran Kaur and her father Shri Kulwant Singh Gill under the relevant sections of law. 3. The departmental disciplinary action should be taken against Shri Kiran Kumar, ASI of Chandigarh Police, who while conducting the inquiry asked the complainant to sell off her flat as it will not prove fruitful.” 4. Aggrieved, the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen, was instituted challenging the jurisdiction of the Registrar to order an inquiry into the matter as well as the inquiry report dated 25.2.2010. It may also be noticed that against the cancellation of the Flat No. 1176, a separate writ petition has been filed by Smt. Harsimran Kaur which is presently pending. 5. The learned Single Judge, hearing the writ petition took the view that the Inquiry Officer appointed by the Registrar was part of the in house mechanism to pinpoint the responsibility for illegal acts by the officers of the society and therefore, the inquiry ordered and the report thereof, would not be without jurisdiction and authority of law. The learned Single Judge, therefore, refused to cause any interference with the inquiry report dated 25.2.2010. However, it was directed that the recommendations for lodging an FIR against the two officials of the society who are the Administrators of the Society, as well as the petitioner and his daughter, would have to be considered by the Investigating Authority and the matter decided on its satisfaction. Aggrieved by the said conclusion of the learned Single Judge, this appeal has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the provisions of Section 50 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to contend that the inquiry ordered by the Registrar by his order dated 18.2.2010 is not contemplated by the aforesaid provisions of the Act and therefore, the said order has to be construed to be without jurisdiction. Learned counsel, while referring to the provisions of Section 55 of the Act, has submitted that the dispute in the present case should have been resolved by the process of Arbitration contemplated by the Section 55 of the Act. 7. Learned counsel, while referring to the provisions of Section 55 of the Act, has submitted that the dispute in the present case should have been resolved by the process of Arbitration contemplated by the Section 55 of the Act. 7. Section 50 of the Act, on a plain reading thereof, contemplates an inquiry by the Registrar into the matters pertaining to constitution, working and financial condition of a co-operative society. The present dispute, therefore, is not covered by Section 50 of the Act. However, taking into account the nature of the dispute raised in the present case by Saroj Sharma, it cannot be said that the Registrar was powerless to order an inquiry into the allegations of connivance of the Administrators of the Society in making illegal allotments. Section 50 of the Act cannot be construed to mean that the Registrar would be denuded of all powers to order an inquiry with regard to complaints of the kind that had been made in the present case. In so far as the provisions of Section 55 of the Act are concerned, the same contemplates resolution of the disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society arising amongst the members by a process of arbitration. In the present case, the allegation made against the petitioner and his daughter is that, they with the connivance of the Administrators, had succeeded in obtaining allotment of a flat which was earlier allotted to the complainant Saroj Sharma. The above is certainly not an issue with regard to the management of a co-operative society. It is certainly not the business of a co-operative society, in the normal course, to indulge in any illegal act that had been complained of in the present case. In that view of the matter, we fail to see how Section 55 of the Act can have any application to the instant matter. 8. The order for inquiry made by the Registrar on 18.02.2010 is in respect of the allegation relating to the conduct of its officers who are alleged to have acted in connivance with the petitioner and his daughter in making an illegal allotment. The report of the Inquiry Officer which is exhaustive has found two officers of the society and the petitioner and his daughter involved in a process of illegal allotment. The report of the Inquiry Officer which is exhaustive has found two officers of the society and the petitioner and his daughter involved in a process of illegal allotment. If that is the position revealed by the inquiry, certainly the law must be allowed to reach its logical conclusion. In so far as the direction for registration of an FIR is concerned, we have already noted that the learned Single Judge had adequately protected the petitioner and his daughter as well as other persons by observing that the registration of FIR will not automatically follow the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer but the same would be subject to the satisfaction of the Investigating Agency which is what the law contemplates. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not consider the present to be a fit case for admission. The Letters Patent Appeal, therefore, is dismissed by refusing admission. No costs. -----------0.K.B.0------------