Court No. - 4
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1185 of 2008 Appellant :- C/M, Officers Cooperative Housing Society Ltd Respondent :- Pawan Singhal And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Tiwari,Preetpal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.M. Mishra
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
This appeal has been filed by Committee of Management Officers Cooperative Housing Society Ltd through its chairman against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2008 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 32410 of 2008.
Heard. Perused the record.
It appears that writ petition No. 32410 of 2008 was filed by respondent no.1 Pawan Singhal challenging the order passed by respondent no. 3 rejecting his claim on the ground that the same was not covered by section 128 of U.P. Co-operative Socities Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
It was submitted before the learned Single Judge that as the claim of the petitioner/respondent no.1 was not found admissible for adjudication under section 128 of the Act, the petitioner's claim be relegated for consideration by the Registrar under section-70 of the Act.
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance upon the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahakari Bank Vs. Additional Labour Commissioner reported in JT 2007(2) SC 566.
Learned Single Judge after examining the material on record, considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the law cited before him, disposed of the writ petition with the following directions :
"i) Petitioner is to file certified copy of the order along with an application to adjudicate the claim between the parties, it will be the concern of respondent no.2 to take appropriate decision in the matter by passing speaking order, preferably within a period of two months.
ii) On receipt of certified copy of the order along with an application to adjudicate the claim between the parties, it will be the concern of respondent no.2 to take appropriate decision in the matter by passing speaking order, preferably within a period of two months.
iii) However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits or otherwise and thus, it will be independent exercise of the concerned authority to deal with the issue and to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law"
Having gone through the impugned judgment and order, perused the ground on which the order of the learned Single Judge has been assailed by the appellant and the other material on record, we do not find that the impugned order suffers from any illegality or infirmity requiring any interference by this Court.
This appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018 Madhurima