Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.@mdashWritten statement on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, filed in the Court today, is taken on record.
2. In the present writ petition, petitioners, who are five in number, have assailed order (Annexure P-18) dated 20th February, 2008 passed by respondent No. 4-Pink Rose Cooperative House Building First Society (hereinafter referred to as, ''the respondent-Society''), whereby their application for substitution of membership was rejected and the amount deposited to their credit was refunded.
3. The Chandigarh Administration had allotted land to various Cooperative Societies at subsidized rates for construction of flats. An argument, which has been raised, is that the respondent-Society is not amenable to writ jurisdiction, as a Society is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It has been further submitted that since housing is a public function and the Society discharges this function, a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be issued.
4. This Court will not determine this issue at this stage, as during the course of arguments, Counsel for the parties, especially Mr. H.S. Sethi, Advocate appearing for the Union Territory, Chandigarh, has submitted that the petitioners have a remedy of appeal and they can file an appeal before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, UT, Chandigarh.
5. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate appearing for the petitioners, has raised an apprehension that the appeals filed before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, UT, Chandigarh are entrusted to the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, UT, Chandigarh for decision and in case this is done, it will seriously prejudice rights of the petitioners, as the officer, who conducted the enquiry (Annexure P-15), was holding equal or a higher post than that of the Joint Registrar.
6. To allay this apprehension, Mr. Sethi has stated that the appeal shall be decided by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, UT, Chandigarh himself.
7. Accepting this contention, Mr. Patwalia has submitted that sufficient time be granted to the petitioners to institute an appeal. Learned Counsel has further submitted that impugned order (Annexure P-18) was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and thus, it violates the principles of natural justice.
8. Mr. Sethi has stated that order (Annexure P-18) was passed in pursuance of the enquiry report (Annexure P-15).
9. Mr. Patwalia has stated that the petitioners are well within their rights to assail the enquiry report (Annexure P-15) before the appellate authority. Mr. Sethi has no objection thereto.
10. After hearing Counsel for the parties, present petition is disposed of with an observation that in case the petitioners prefer an appeal within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the same shall be entertained and decided by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, UT, Chandigarh within three months thereafter. Furthermore, it will be open for the petitioners to assail the enquiry report (Annexure P-15) before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, UT, Chandigarh. Since, the order (Annexure P-18) was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, no further action shall be taken against the petitioners in pursuance thereof till the appeal is decided by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, UT, Chandigarh.
