CWP-17422-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17422-2025 Date of decision: 01.07.2025 Jangra Brahman Sabha, Thanesar, and others ….Petitioners Versus State Registrar, Firm and Societies, Haryana, and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Shyam Singh Chhokar, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral) 1. Fetching grievance from the orders dated 31.03.2025 and 22.04.2025, passed by the District Registrar, Firm & Societies, Kurukshetra (respondent No.2), the petitioners have preferred statutory appeals No.57 of 2025 (Annexure P-15) and No.69 of 2025 (Annexure P-19), respectively, before the State Registrar, Firm and Societies, Haryana (respondent No.1), however, the same have not been decided. Moreover, the applications seeking interim stay of the impugned orders (supra), are pending before respondent No.1. Being aggrieved, on account of non-adjudication of the appeals (supra), the petitioners are propelled to file the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Mandamus upon respondent No.1 to hear and decide the appeals, in a time bound manner. 2. Notice of motion. AMIT KUMAR 2025.07.03 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-17422-2025 -2- 3. Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and waives service. 4. At the outset, he submits that he has instructions from respondent No.1, to inform the Court that all endeavours shall be made to decide the appeals (supra), within a span of five months, and as far as the applications for interim stay of the impugned orders are concerned, the same shall be adjudicated, within a period of one month from passing of this order. 5. In view of the abovesaid specific stand set out by the learned State counsel, the asked for Mandamus is not required to be passed, at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of. 7. Furthermore, it is also expected from respondent No.1, to adhere to the time line, as apprised to this Court, by the learned State counsel. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE 01.07.2025 Ak Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No AMIT KUMAR 2025.07.03 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document