Indersain Aggarwal And ORS. v. State Of Haryana And ORS.

-1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision.15.02.2017 Indersain Aggarwal and others .......Petitioners Vs State of Haryana and others ........Respondents

Present:

Ms. Kshitija Mittal, Advocate for Mr. Pardeep Solath, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajbir Singh, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for CBI.

Mr. Birender Singh Rana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gagandeep Rana, Advocate for respondent Nos.6 to 9.

Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for respondent Nos.11 to 13.

Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate for respondent No.14.

Mr. Rajender Chhokar, Advocate for respondent No.15.

Mr. Rajvir Singh Sihag, Advocate for respondent No.16.

Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for respondent No.17.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL -.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) The petitioners knocked the door of this Court for seeking following relief:- "Civil writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction,

-2or certiorari quashing the order dated 31.12.2009 passed by respondent No.1 and to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.18 to conduct enquiry against respondent No.6 to 17 within specified period or by any other independent agency other than State agency as per law and further directions to take appropriate legal action against the responsible persons for recovery of Rs.70 lacs as per law." Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the FSL report (Annexure P-1), much less, the report of the CBI conducted in pursuance of the order dated 09.12.2014 which is at page 212 onwards. The report of the CBI is based upon the allegation made in the writ petition only. She further submits that in view of the aforementioned report, no action has been taken against the then Managing Committee of the society.

The aforementioned report, ex facie, revealed the misuse of the powers, much less, the defective materials used in the construction. The prayer in the writ petition is being objected by private respondents represented through counsels. Reference to all these reports have been made in paragraph 6 of the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.1Special Secretary to Government Haryana, Vigilance to contend that report of vigilance was placed before the committee under the chairmanship of the then Chief Secretary in its meeting held on 25.11.2009 and thereafter, it has been recommended to be consigned. The petitioner has remedy under Section 99 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act to bring to the notice of the Registrar for the alleged enquiry.

The aforementioned enquiry, according to the counsel representing the petitioner, has arisen owing to the representation made to

-3the Chief Minister. I am of the view that all these reports since have been consigned yet the remedy for the petitioner would be to invoke the provisions of Section 99 and not in the manner and mode by coming to this Court.

Resultantly, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Registrar for holding enquiry. In case any application is made, the Registrar shall enter into reference and conduct enquiry as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year after affording sufficient opportunities of hearing to the parties. (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE February 15, 2017 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No