Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharambeer And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 22 October, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
CWP-1408-2023 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(242)
CWP-1408-2023
Date of decision:- 22.10.2024
Dharambeer and another ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Ms. Reena Rani, Advocate for
Mr. Rajeev Sharma (Raju), Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Aman Bahri, Addl. A.G., Haryana
for respondents No.1 to 3.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of instant petition, petitioners have approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India inter-alia for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing impugned order dated 06.01.2023, Annexure P-1, passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rewari-respondent No.3, whereby petitioners, who were the President and Secretary of Society-respondent No.4, were placed under suspension.
2. Response has been filed on behalf of official respondents No. 1 to 3, wherein it has been submitted that the petitioners are accused of committing various irregularities pertaining to allotment of plots of the Society and of constructing a Community Centre in a park without getting necessary approval.
KAMAL SHARMA 2024.10.25 14:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh. CWP-1408-2023 -2-
3. State counsel submits that various complaints were received against the petitioners and they were issued several notices, but they failed to produce the relevant record. He submits that the petitioners filed a joint reply in response to show cause notices and after hearing them, order dated 23.01.2023 was passed under Section 35 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, whereby petitioners have been removed from the post of President and Secretary. He submits that this order has been separately challenged by the petitioners by filing CWP-2276-2023, which is pending for consideration before this Court. He submits that in view of the subsequent development, prayer made in the writ petition has become infructuous.
4. Counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the subsequent development as well as pendency of the writ petition as pointed out by the State counsel.
5. In view of the above, writ petition has been rendered infructuous and is dismissed as such.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
22.10.2024
Kamal
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
KAMAL SHARMA
2024.10.25 14:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh.