Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AJAIB SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ajaib Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-19008-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 9764 (2 November 2006)

C.W.P. No. 19908 of 2006 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P. No. 19908 of 2006

Date of Decision: November 7, 2006

Rajender Singh

.....Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana and others

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

Present:- Mr. R.K. Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana,

for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. Amit Rana, Advocate

for respondents No.3 and 5.

Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate

for respondent No.4.

-.-

M.M. KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

Mr. Harish Rathee, learned State counsel has stated that no State interest is involved and no reply on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 is necessary.

C.W.P. No. 19908 of 2006 [2]

The prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition is for quashing order dated March 26, 2004 (P-4) passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hissar, refusing to exercise jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984, (for brevity, `the Act'), by quashing the resolution dated October 23, 2003. According to the resolution dated October 23, 2003 (P-3), respondent No.4- Chhabildass has been appointed as Sales man of the Hasinga Cooperative Credit and Service Society Limited, (respondent No.3). However, at the outset, Mr.

Sanjiv Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has raised a preliminary objection by placing reliance on the written statement of respondents No.3 and 5 which he has adopted, that against the order of Deputy Registrar, a revision petition under Section 115 of the Act would be competent. He has referred to the amended provisions of Section 115 of the Act, as amended by the Haryana Act No.19 of 2006 and argued that an aggrieved party can now approach the revisional authority for correction of any error.

Mr. R.K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner has not raised any serious argument with regard to the aforementioned preliminary objection of the counsel for the respondents.

In view of the above, we relegate the petitioner to the remedy of invoking the revisional jurisdiction as provided by Section 115 of the Act.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

(M.M.KUMAR)

JUDGE

C.W.P. No. 19908 of 2006 [3]

November 7, 2006 (M.M.S.BEDI)

sanjay JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.