IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 136 MANINDER DEEP SINGH MAHANT STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE MR. Present : Mr Mr HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI 1. The present Single Judge on 07.01.2025 petition filed by the petitioner has b ground that any application filed by a person for conduct affairs of society 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argu respondent No.4 was the member of the society therefore, he has right to society which fact if, it is assumed that the appellant, who is not grievance. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant f society is being mismanaged, it become action against said mismanagement on IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. Date of decision: MANINDER DEEP SINGH MAHANT Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for the Mr. T.P.S. Chawla, Sr. D.A.G, Punjab. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (oral) The present appeal is challenged to the order passed by learned Single Judge on 07.01.2025 in CWP No.1867 of 2023 petition filed by the petitioner has been held to be non ground that any application filed by a person for conduct affairs of society, who is not a member of society Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argu respondent No.4 was the member of the society therefore, he has right to raise grievance with regard t fact has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge, even if, it is assumed that the appellant, who is not Learned counsel for the appellant f society is being mismanaged, it becomes the duty of the Registrar against said mismanagement on suo moto IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH No.573 of 2025 Date of decision: 22.09.2025 MANINDER DEEP SINGH MAHANT …. Appellant Versus …. Respondents HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI VIKAS SURI , Advocate for the appellant. Punjab. is challenged to the order passed by learned in CWP No.1867 of 2023 by which, the writ een held to be non-maintainable on the ground that any application filed by a person for conduct an inquiry into the , who is not a member of society, cannot be looked into. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argues that respondent No.4 was the member of the society i.e. respondent No.3 and raise grievance with regard to mismanagement of the has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge, even if, it is assumed that the appellant, who is not a member, cannot raise any Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that once the the duty of the Registrar to take suo moto basis but, still no action is is challenged to the order passed by learned by which, the writ maintainable on the into the that and management of the has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge, even member, cannot raise any urther submits that once the to take no action is Jyoti 2025.09.26 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.573 of 2025 being taken qua said aspect the appellant herein before the Registrar mismanagement of the respondent No.3 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with his able assistance. 4. It may which is a conceded fact raising a grievance with regard to the mismanagement of cannot be allowed. the management of learned Single Judge while appreciating the said fact had rightly declined the relief claimed by appellant herein petitioner before the learned Single day-to-day functioning of the society. 5. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that 53 of the Punjab Self into play for the purpose of conducting inquiry. A bare perusal of the same will reveal that same the affairs of the society of which that only a member can raise management of the society respondent No- qua working of the society proforma respondent No.4 was a member when he made the application for the LPA No.573 of 2025 qua said aspect despite the fact that a complaint the appellant herein before the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies mismanagement of the respondent No.3-society. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with his able assistance. It may be noticed that the appellant is not a member of the society a conceded fact. Once, the appellant is not a member of society, grievance with regard to the mismanagement of cannot be allowed. It is pertinent to note here that t the management of a private society cannot be allowed at any cost learned Single Judge while appreciating the said fact had rightly declined the claimed by appellant herein on the ground that the petitioner before the learned Single Bench, has no day functioning of the society. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that 53 of the Punjab Self-Supporting Co-operative into play for the purpose of conducting inquiry. A bare perusal of the same will reveal that same will not give any benefit to the appellant affairs of the society of which he is not a member. nly a member can raise grievance with regard management of the society and concededly, the appellant is not the member of -3-Society which could give him the right to raise any working of the society. Further an argument has been raised that the proforma respondent No.4 was a member when he made the application for the - 2- despite the fact that a complaint had been filed by of the Cooperative Societies qua the society. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone be noticed that the appellant is not a member of the society nce, the appellant is not a member of society, grievance with regard to the mismanagement of a private society, that third-party intervention into society cannot be allowed at any cost and the learned Single Judge while appreciating the said fact had rightly declined the on the ground that the appellant, who was has no locus standi to challenge the The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that Section operative Societies Act, 2006, shall come into play for the purpose of conducting inquiry. A bare perusal of the same will will not give any benefit to the appellant so as to interfere in he is not a member. It is a conceded position grievance with regard to any grievance qua the and concededly, the appellant is not the member of which could give him the right to raise any grievance . Further an argument has been raised that the proforma respondent No.4 was a member when he made the application for the filed by qua the We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone be noticed that the appellant is not a member of the society nce, the appellant is not a member of society, , party intervention into and the learned Single Judge while appreciating the said fact had rightly declined the , who was to challenge the Section shall come into play for the purpose of conducting inquiry. A bare perusal of the same will to interfere in a conceded position qua the and concededly, the appellant is not the member of grievance . Further an argument has been raised that the proforma respondent No.4 was a member when he made the application for the Jyoti 2025.09.26 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.573 of 2025 scrutiny of the record and highlighted the irregularities in the affairs of the society, it may be noticed that removed for the last two years by passing a resolution which resolution has not been challenged by respondent No.4 even up to now. 6. Further, the appeal has not been preferred by respondent No.4 so as to challenge the findings of learned Single Judge and the appellant, who is not the member of the society, cannot file the present appeal by placing reliance upon the shoulders of the respondent No.4. Once respondent No.4 is not aggrieved by the judgment of the learn is not even the member, cannot raise any said grievance. 7. Keeping in view the above, as no perversity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been pointed out either ground is made out to allow the present appeal and the same is dismissed. September 22, 2025 Jyoti-IV LPA No.573 of 2025 scrutiny of the record and highlighted the irregularities in the affairs of the society, it may be noticed that the said respondent No.4 had already been removed for the last two years by passing a resolution which resolution has not been challenged by respondent No.4 even up to now. Further, the appeal has not been preferred by respondent No.4 so e the findings of learned Single Judge and the appellant, who is not the member of the society, cannot file the present appeal by placing reliance upon the shoulders of the respondent No.4. Once respondent No.4 is not aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant who is not even the member, cannot raise any said grievance. Keeping in view the above, as no perversity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been pointed out either ground is made out to allow the present appeal and the same is dismissed. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI September 22, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No - 3- scrutiny of the record and highlighted the irregularities in the affairs of the the said respondent No.4 had already been removed for the last two years by passing a resolution which resolution has not been challenged by respondent No.4 even up to now. Further, the appeal has not been preferred by respondent No.4 so e the findings of learned Single Judge and the appellant, who is not the member of the society, cannot file the present appeal by placing reliance upon the shoulders of the respondent No.4. Once respondent No.4 is ed Single Judge, the appellant who is not even the member, cannot raise any said grievance. Keeping in view the above, as no perversity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been pointed out either in the rules or on facts, no ground is made out to allow the present appeal and the same is dismissed. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (VIKAS SURI) JUDGE Yes/No. Yes/No scrutiny of the record and highlighted the irregularities in the affairs of the the said respondent No.4 had already been removed for the last two years by passing a resolution which resolution has not Further, the appeal has not been preferred by respondent No.4 so e the findings of learned Single Judge and the appellant, who is not the member of the society, cannot file the present appeal by placing reliance upon the shoulders of the respondent No.4. Once respondent No.4 is ed Single Judge, the appellant who Keeping in view the above, as no perversity in the judgment of the facts, no ) Jyoti 2025.09.26 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document