Shakti Singh And Another v. Rcs Haryana And Others

104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RA-CW-307-2025 in CWP No. 19950 of 2023 Date of Decision: 28.07.2025 SHAKTI SINGH AND ANOTHER ....Petitioners vs.

REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES HARYANA AND OTHERS ....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:

Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate for the review applicants-respondents No. 5 and 6 Mr. Shashank Bhandari, Addl.A.G, Haryana *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.

The applicants-respondents No. 5 and 6 are seeking review of order dated 20.05.2025 passed by this Court. The operative part of order dated 20.05.2025 reads as:- " xxx xxx xxx 3.

On being confronted with the contents of communication dated 05.05.2023 of Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kurukshetra, learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that till date no order under Section 27 of 1984 Act has been passed. He further submits that authorities may be granted liberty to pass an order, however, services of the petitioners may be protected till the date of passing adverse order, if any. PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2025.07.28 04:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RA-CW-307-2025 in CWP No. 19950 of 2023 -24. Learned State counsel agrees with the offer of learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that competent authority would pass appropriate order, if necessary.

5.

In the wake of statement of both sides, the present petitions stand disposed of.

6.

It is hereby made clear that petitioners shall not be relieved till passing of adverse order, if any, by competent authority."

2.

The non-applicants-petitioners were assailing proceedings before Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kurukshetra. By aforesaid order, this Court has not set aside proceedings pending before Deputy Registrar. It is Deputy Registrar who has to decide fate of Resolution passed by Society. This Court has not commented on validity of the Resolution passed by Society which is under consideration before Deputy Registrar. 3.

On the asking of ground of review, Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate submits that no time period has been prescribed for passing order by Deputy Registrar.

4.

The said prayer is to be made by petitioners not by applicantsrespondents No. 5 and 6. If they are aggrieved of proceedings before Deputy Registrar, they are supposed to avail independent remedies as permissible by law.

5.

Dismissed.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 28.07.2025 paramjit Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:

No PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2025.07.28 04:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document