Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sham Lal vs The Punjab State Cooperative Bank Ltd ... on 31 May, 2016
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
1
CWP No.352 of 2015;
CWP No.413 of 2015;
CWP No.451 of 2015 &
CWP No.455 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 31.05.2016
CWP No.352 of 2015
Sham Lal ...Petitioner
Vs.
The Punjab State Cooperative Bank Ltd. & others ...Respondents
CWP No.413 of 2015
Raj Kumar ...Petitioner
Vs.
The Punjab State Cooperative Bank Ltd. & others ...Respondents
CWP No.451 of 2015
Balbir Singh ...Petitioner
Vs.
The Punjab State Cooperative Bank Ltd. & others ...Respondents
CWP No.455 of 2015
Manohar Lal ...Petitioner
Vs.
The Punjab State Cooperative Bank Ltd. & others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: M/s Inderjit Sharma & Karan Choudhary, Advocates,
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Pardeep Singh Bajwa, Advocate,
for respondents No.1 to 4.
1 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 03-06-2016 00:11:02 :::
2
CWP No.352 of 2015;
CWP No.413 of 2015;
CWP No.451 of 2015 &
CWP No.455 of 2015
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. (ORAL)
This order will dispose of the above mentioned three writ petitions, as common questions of law and fact are involved in them, which can conveniently be decided by a common order.
A preliminary objection has been taken in the written statement that a writ petition does not lie against respondents No.1 to 4 since the State has no direct or indirect control over the affairs of the respondent cooperative society. The State is not a major shareholder in the cooperative society, which is a private body registered under the provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961.
Mr. Pardeep Singh Bajwa, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.1 to 4, presses the preliminary objection by citing the decision of the Supreme Court in S.S.Rana Vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies & another, (2006) 11 SCC 634. He would refer to paras.8 & 11 of the judgment which render the writ petition(s) not maintainable. The remedy, if any, does not lie in the writ jurisdiction but elsewhere.
As a result, all the writ petitions are dismissed for want of maintainability with liberty to the petitioner(s) to pursue his/their remedy before the appropriate forum. The dismissal of these writ petitions will not preclude the petitioner(s) from seeking his/their legal remedies outside the jurisdiction of the writ Court in the appropriate forum.
31.05.2016 [RAJIV NARAIN RAINA]
Vimal JUDGE
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 03-06-2016 00:11:03 :::