JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J. Undisputedly, respondent No.3 was expelled from the membership of the society on 11.12.2005 vide proceedings (Annexure P/8) on the ground that respondent No.3 had failed to deposit remaining Rs.3,75,000/- along with interest despite valid notice. Having acquired knowledge about the cancellation of the membership (expulsion), respondent No.3 preferred an appeal under Section 114 of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984, before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 30.10.2008, having observed expulsion/cancellation of membership was never got approved from the Registrar, Co-operative Societies as required under bye-laws 9(A) and 9(B) of the petitioner – Society. Revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 03.02.2010. Undisputedly, earlier son of respondent No.3, namely, Samir Batra, was the member of the Society and respondent No.3 thereafter acquired the membership by transfer of the shares of her son in her favour in the year 2004. As per schedule, the price of the flat was Rs. 14 lacs while respondent No.3 had already paid Rs.15,90,000/-and thereafter, had sent cheque of Rs.3,25,000/- which was received by the petitioner – Society on 01.01.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that membership of respondent No.3 was cancelled on two grounds i.e. (i) non-payment of balance amount of Rs.3,75,000/- and (ii) because respondent No.3 had filed false affidavit before the Society that her husband is not having any property in any society while her husband has already been allotted flat by the Army Housing Welfare Organization in Gurgaon. I have carefully perused the proceedings (Annexure P/8). From the perusal of Annexure P/8, I find that membership of respondent No.3 was cancelled for non-payment of outstanding amount of Rs.3,75,000/-despite notice. There is no whisper in proceedings (Annexure P/8) that the membership is being cancelled on account of any false affidavit. It seems that in order to justify the cancellation, the petitioner is setting up a new case. From the perusal of Annexure P/8, I find that membership of respondent No.3 was cancelled for non-payment of outstanding amount of Rs.3,75,000/-despite notice. There is no whisper in proceedings (Annexure P/8) that the membership is being cancelled on account of any false affidavit. It seems that in order to justify the cancellation, the petitioner is setting up a new case. Bye-laws 9(A) and 9(B) of the petitioner – Society read as under:- “9(A) - A member may be expelled from the Society by the vote of not less than three-fourth of the members present subject to the approval of R.C.S. and voting at a general meeting of the Society on a motion that in the opinion of the meeting such member has: i) willfully deceived the society by false statement; ii) has been bankrupt; iii) being criminally conducted of an offence involving moral turpitude. 9-B - The Committee shall give a member 30 days written notice of the proposal to expel him. The members explanation, if any shall be placed before the general meeting for consideration.” Perusal of Bye-law 9(A) reveals that expulsion shall be subject to approval of Registrar, Co-operative Societies. No material is placed before me to say that Registrar, Co-operative Societies has accorded any approval to the expulsion of respondent No.3. Learned Registrar, Co-operative Societies seems to be justified in observing that any expulsion without his approval is non-est. Moreover, it would be arbitrary and unjustified and against the principle of equity to expel a member who has already deposited about Rs.15,90,000/- (as observed by respondent No.1 in the order dated 03.02.2010, annexure P-12) while as per the schedule of the price, cost of the flat is Rs.14 lacs. Record reveals that respondent No.3 thereafter also tried to make payment of the amount demanded by the petitioner – society which was said to be refunded by the petitioner – society saying that amount tendered by respondent No.3 was after the expulsion. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to exercise my writ jurisdiction to interfere with the orders passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies and Financial Commissioner / Principal Secretary. Petitioner – Society is duty bound to allot the flat to respondent No.3 after receiving rest of the amount if outstanding from respondent No. 3 Dismissed.