JUDGMENT RANJIT SINGH, J. Petitioners are the members of Milkfed Employees Co-operative House Building (Ist) Society Ltd. They have approached this court to impugn the order dated 25.5.2012 (Annexure P-30) passed by Advisor to the Administrative U.T.Chandigarh and order dated 7.2.2011 (Annexure P-28) passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T.Chandigarh, whereby demand of the society to charge different amount from ground floor allottees for transmission to top floor allottees was set-aside being unwarranted. The Society was allotted land for construction of 51 dwelling units for its eligible members. A meeting of the Executive Members of the Society was held on 23.1.2005 and decision was also taken to conduct the Annual General Body meeting on 20.2.2005. On 31.1.2005, notice was given by the Executive Committee to all the members for Annual General Body meeting, which was to be held on 20.2.2005. Intimation in this regard was sent to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.T.Chandigarh. On 20.2.2005, 28 members out of total 51 members were present. A supplementary agenda about the floor-wise price difference of the flats in category `A' and `B' was stated to be listed at Sr.No.9-B. This was discussed and approved to the effect that the ground floor allottees would pay `50,000/- and first floor allottees 30,000/- over and above the actual cost. On 25.6.2005, election to the Managing Committee of the society was held and 7 members were elected. Meeting of the newly elected Executive Committee was held on 4.7.2005. The proceedings of the general body meeting were confirmed on 31.7.2005. On 18.12.2005, the Executive Committee decided to apply for draw of flats to the Registrar. On 23.12.2005 directions were issued to the society for conducting draw of lots on 14.1.2006. The notice was circulated to the members regarding the draw of lots to be held on 14.1.2006. On 2.1.2006, Executive Committee decided to call a General Body meeting before draw of flats for price difference in floorwise. On 14.1.2006 Annual General Meeting was conducted, in which 27 members out of 51 were present and by majority of vote passed resolution to charge `1.00 lacs from `A' category of ground floor for transferring the same to the top floor of the same category in equal and `75,000/- from `B' category of ground floor, which was to be equally distributed to the top floor category `B' and likewise 50,000/- from `C' category. The Registrar, however, on 7.8.2006 declared the meeting of 20.2.2005 as invalid because there was no intimation of the meeting in the office of Registrar. It is also observed that the meeting on 14.1.2006 was held for holding a draw of plots and there was no agenda for charging extra amount from the ground/first floor allottees for onwards transferring the amount to top floor allottees. The Registrar, accordingly, advised the Committee to call a fresh general body meeting with proper circulation of agenda. The President then sought approval of the Registrar for conducting general body meeting, who granted permission to hold the said meeting on 14.1.2007. It is stated that the order dated 10.1.2007 would show that the floor-wise price difference was approved in Annual General Meeting held on 14.1.2006. The President gave notice to all ground floor allottees to deposit the price difference. A public notice for this purpose has also been issued on 11.3.2007. The General Secretary of the society informed Registrar on 12.3.2007 about the non-deposit of floor wise price difference. Another notice was issued on 23.3.2007 followed by yet another notice on 2.4.2007. Even the Inspector (Audit) Grade-1 was detailed by the Registrar, who submitted a report that the decision regarding floor-wise price difference was approved by majority in the Annual General Body meeting held on 14.1.2007. Thereafter respondents filed a petition under Section 80 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rule,1963 for setting aside order dated 14.1.2007. It is stated that the Registrar dismissed this petition against which the respondents filed a revision, who vide his order dated 24.9.2008 remanded the case back to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The Registrar vide his order dated 7.2.2011 upheld the order dated 7.8.2006 and has held that resolution dated 14.1.2007 to be invalid on the ground that through this resolution, the meeting dated 14.1.2006 was declared invalid. It is also observed that the society has not placed on record any material as to how it had reached to calculate the difference amount being charged from the ground floor allottees. The Advisor to Union Territory has upheld this order on 25.5.2012, against which the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. The counsel for the petitioners contends that Registrar and the Advisor are not justified in holding the valid resolution passed by the general body meet of the society to be invalid. The Advisor to Union Territory has upheld this order on 25.5.2012, against which the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. The counsel for the petitioners contends that Registrar and the Advisor are not justified in holding the valid resolution passed by the general body meet of the society to be invalid. In the impugned order, it is observed that there was no agenda for charging extra amount from the ground floor allottees for onwards transmission to top floor allottees in the meeting held on 20.2.2005 and 14.1.2006. Due to this, the meeting held on 20.2.2005 was declared invalid. It is observed that the meeting held on 14.1.2006 was only for holding draw of lots and was not for charging floor wise amount. The Advisor in addition has also held that the counsel for the petitioners failed to prove any perversity in the order passed by the Registrar and thus he did not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. I have also not been able to find any justification on the part of the society to unilaterally demand some extra costs from the ground floor allottees for onwards transmission to the top floor allottees. The allotment is not by way of choice, but on the basis of draw of lots. How this court would be in a position to substitute its view in regard to validity of such decision which prima facie does not appear sound on the basis of any legal principle. The general house comprises of 51 members. In both the meetings almost about 50% of the members were not present. The counsel for the petitioners has not been able to satisfactorily show from the record if there was valid agenda circulated for fixing the floor wise price after due intimation to the Registrar. The Registrar as well as the Advisor, therefore, are justified in holding this part of the decision invalid which was taken without any agenda having been circulated. The petitioners have not been left without a remedy. If the majority decision is this, the Registrar as well as the Advisor have left an option open with the petitioners to hold a fresh meeting of the General Body and to pass any appropriate order after circulating the agenda. In view of these facts, I find no merit in the writ petition and would dismiss the same in limine.