106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-30123-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : 22.05.2025 JILE SINGH .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. Tarun, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. Bhupender Singh, DAG, Haryana for respondents no.1 to 9. None for respondent no.12. KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral) CM-7678-CWP-2025 1. Application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions, and record of General Body Meeting held on 04.01.2025, and RTI application alongwith response dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2 respectively), are ordered to be taken on record. CWP-30123-2024 2. Through the instant writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is thrown to the letter dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-9), issued by respondent no.4, appointing an adhoc committee vide which respondents no.10 to 12, have been appointed as members of the said committee. 3. The only ground for throwing challenge to the appointment of adhoc committee (supra), is that there are some allegations of embezzlement against the members thereof. DHARAM VIR 2025.05.30 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-30123-2024 (O&M) -2- 4. This Court has put a specific query to learned counsel for the petitioner, as to what are the legal grounds which disqualify respondents no.10 to 12, to be part of the adhoc committee, specifically, when the charges against them, have yet not been proved, he, furthermore, while referring to the supervening events, wherethrough, the elections have been held by the adhoc committee, and even the said elections were alleged to have been annulled by the General Body, submits that the act and conduct of the General Body, post appointment is not in accordance with law/bye-laws. 5. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court does not find any merit in the same, as how come, the event post the appointment of adhoc committee, would be the reasons to throw challenge to the order of appointment adhoc committee. 6. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to cite any provision of law to substantiate his argument, or any error in the order (supra), which is sought to quashed. Therefore, there is no merit in the instant petition, which is, consequently dismissed. 7. However, in case the petitioner, still has any grievance with regard to the supervening events, as referred to, in the aforesaid application, he is at liberty to take all the alternate remedies, as are available to him, as per law. (KULDEEP TIWARI) May 22, 2025 JUDGE dharamvir Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No DHARAM VIR 2025.05.30 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document