Some Questions which needs to be answered:

By the President of the Society, Mr. Swaran Singh:

1.    As per the approved plan, the society is to construct only 338 flats while the 1st Scrutiny committee in its orders dated 31.07.2004 had found only 286 genuine members in the society.  However the managing committee sold the bogus memberships to new persons and enrolled so many new members to take the total membership of the society to 496.  Why did the managing committee revived bogus memberships and enrolled so many new members putting the interests of all members at stake?

2.    What was the criteria for enrolment of new members and how much premium was charged from them for enrollment?  Where was that money used?

3.    The 286 genuine members of the society had deposited a total sum of approx. Rs. 15.14 Crores with the society upto January 2005, while the 210 new members had a total deposit of approx. Rs. 11.67 Crores.  The total money deposited with the society upto January 2005 was approx. Rs. 26.82 Crores, out of which only Rs. 2.5 Crores was paid to PUDA while crores of rupees were diverted towards advance payments to the contractors which resulted in huge penalties being imposed by PUDA.  Why were the contractors made advance payment and where was that money channelised?  Why was the money not deposited with PUDA in-time which resulted in huge penalties?

4.     How much money was paid by the President Mr. Swaran Singh himself for his flat in the society and when?

5.     From the records it is seen that the president has failed to produce the receipt of Rs. 30,000/- said to be paid by him in 2004.  Further, a cash amount of Rs. 2,05,000/- said to be deposited by the president on 11.09.2004 (a day before allotments were made to some members) does not reflect in the bank accounts of the society.  Does the president have any proof that these amount was actually deposited?

6.   The Department of Cooperation vide its Order No. RCS/161/Amendment/281 dated 21.05.2004 had made it mandatory that "Allotment of plots/flats will be only made in the presence of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab or his nominee".  The order was duly received by the then Honorary Secretary Mr. Swaran Singh on 13.07.2004.  However the allotment of flats was made by Mr. Swaran Singh on 12.09.2004 and 16.02.2005 defying these orders.  Why were these orders not complied with?

7.    How may flats have already been allotted and what was the criteria for allotment of these flats?

8.    Why the new members, who had not paid even the land cost on the date of allotment, were allotted flats at prime locations whereas many old members who had deposited lacs of rupees with the society were not allotted any flats at all ?

9.    Why were the newly enrolled members made the allotments of flats (on 12.09.2004) before the expiry of time provided to genuine members (upto 10.10.2004) to deposit the money with the society ?

10.    Why some of the old members were not allowed to deposit the balance payment for allotment of flats while newly enrolled members were given allotments even without their single penny paid to the society on the date of allotment?

11.    Some members have been issued allotments of flats on 5th and 6th floors whereas the society is constructing only four floors as per the approved plans.  Why were the members given fake allotment letters?

12.    The President of the society Mr. Swaran Singh allotted a flat to himself with total payment of Rs. 30,000 only, to his son Mr. Gagandeep Singh with a payment of Rs. 25,000 only, to his Nephews Mr. Kulbir Singh and Mr. Balbir Singh with a payment Rs. 40,000 each while many other members who had paid much higher amounts were altogether neglected in the allotment.  What were the reasons behind this action ?

13.   The cash receipts amounting to a total of Rs. 31 Lacs were issued in his own favor and in the favor of his near and dear ones by Mr. Swaran Singh on 11.09.2004 to make them eligible for allotment of flats {1. Swaran Singh (Self) - Rs. 30000 to 235000, 2. Gagandeep (Son) - Rs 25000 to 235000, 3. Kulbir Singh (Nephew) - Rs 40000 to 235000, 4. Balbir Singh (Nephew) - Rs 40000 to 235000 and many more} however the amount was never deposited in the society account.  Where was that cash used ?

14.    Out of the total 496 members, how many are eligible for allotment of flats and what is the criteria for eligibility?

15.    Is there any list of eligible members available with the society.  If No, Why? and If yes, the same may be placed on notice board of the society so that the members should be clear about their status.

16.    Why those members who are not eligible for allotment of flat in the society not notified regarding this and their money has not been refunded so far?  When will they be notified regarding this and their money be refunded?

17.    How many more flats are available for allotment to the left out members and weather these shall be allotted with the draw of lots or some other criteria ?

18.    How many members have been given possessions of flats and how many of these flats stands occupied as on date?

19.    The previous term of the managing committee had expired on 03.03.2005 and the administrator was appointed by the Deputy Registrar on 04.03.2005 vide his letter No. 644-47.  But the possessions letters were issued on 06.03.2005, inspite of the fact that the contractors had not handed over these flats to the society and the society didn't even had water, electricity and sewerage connections.  Why were possessions of incomplete flats given to the members and were you authorised to give possessions after the administrator was appointed?

20.    The Hon'ble Civil Courts of Kharar had given relief to 39 members only and had ordered status quo till the pendancy of the petition.  Whereas as on date more than 80 flats have electricity connections and stands physically occupied.  Why were these possessions allowed in violation of court orders?

21.    Why the record of society was not presented to the auditors for completing the audit ?  Why no action was taken on serious irregularities pointed out by various audit reports ?

22.    What is the total cost of construction of flats and how much money is being charged from the members?  Why was no record submitted to the enquiry committee of S. E. (Housefed) constituted by the Registrar to ascertain the actual cost of flats and look into the irregularities in the financial transactions with the contractors ?   

By the officials of the Department of Cooperation, Government of Punjab:

1.    Various Complaints, Enquiries and Orders have made it amply clear that the allotments made by Mr. Swaran Singh are arbitrary and against the provisions of Clause No. 45 (iv) of the Byelaws of the Primary Cooperative House Building Societies.  But the department has so far not cancelled the allotments and neither any action was taken against the guilty managing committee members. Why?

2.    The self-speaking orders of the Deputy Registrar (Legal) dated 27.12.2005 vide which the resolutions of managing committee dated 12.09.2004 and 16.02.2005 were set aside, were stayed by the F.C.C. Mr. S. K. Sinha on 23.01.2006.  Following the stay, the case was pending with the Special Secretary (Cooperation) for around 8 months and just when it was about to reach its logical conclusion, it was shifted back to the F.C.C.  The reasons are best known to the cooperative department and its top officials.

3.    Following the illegal possession of flats by some members the Hon'ble Civil Courts of Kharar had given relief to 39 members only and had ordered status quo till the pendancy of the petition.  However, the managing committee issued many more possession letters in back date and the beneficiary members continued to occupy the flats while the department was a mock spectator even after the concerned officials were physically taken to the site by the members of the Adhoc Committee and were shown that about 80 flats have got electricity connections and stands physically occupied in violation of the court orders.  However, the Assistant Registrar, instead of taking any action has written to the culprit managing committee members themselves, to lodge a police complaint in this regard.  The reasons are best known to the Assistant Registrar, Mohali or Deputy Registrar, Ropar.

4.    Various Audit Reports and Enquiry Reports including the enquiry conducted by S.E. (Housefed) under the direct orders of Minister of Cooperation and Registrar Cooperative Societies, to ascertain the actual cost of flats and the irregularities in the financial transactions with the contractors of the society have pointed out that the managing committee has not cooperated with them and has not provided any record so as to enable them to conduct their enquiries properly.  Inspite of so many instances of non-cooperation by the managing committee the department has never initiated any action to obtain the record and set the society's house in order.  The reasons are best known to the concerned officials ?

5.    The detailed scrutiny of the members was ordered by Financial Commissioner (Cooperation) vide his orders dated 08.08.2003 which read

" It is reiterated that the exact identity and description of all the elements has to be ascertained before they are allowed to be enrolled as the members of the society.  This is necessary in order to avoid any malpractice or giving a chance to the interested elements to enroll factitious names for their own vested interests. "

        However lately the new F.C.C. Mr. S. K. Sinha, regularised all factitious names overruling the radical findings and sweeping recommendations of the scrutiny committees constituted his predecessor thereby annulling the long drawn process of scrutiny and putting the interests of all genuine members at stake.  The reasons can be explained by Mr. S. K. Sinha and Mr. Swaran Singh only.

6.    The scrutiny committee in its report dated 22.04.2005 had given the following findings and recommendations:

“The scrutiny of new members enrolled between January and March 2004 was carried out by the Scrutiny Committee.  Out of 109 members, only 62 members appeared before the committee on 08.04.2005" ..... "From the analysis of the record, it has been noticed that none of the new members have been enrolled against those members who were declared genuine (286) by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab in his orders dated 31.07.2004.  Rather those members who were declared non-genuine/bogus by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab in his orders dated 31.07.2004 have been substituted to enroll these new members.  Although all these members have paid an amount ranging from Rs. 1 Lac to 12 Lacs for getting the flat, but still these newly enrolled members cannot be declared as genuine members.  Further investigations have revealed that even after March 2004 and till February 2005, the President and Secretary of the managing committee has enrolled many new members after taking huge money from them.  The scrutiny of these members is being done separately by this office."

       However all 109 members (including 47 bogus ones) were declared genuine by F.C.C. and also another 101 members enrolled by the managing committee after March 2004 were also declared genuine by F.C.C. without giving a chance to the scrutiny committee to ascertain their genuineness.  This inspite of the fact that the malicious interests of the managing committee in the enrollment of these members were also made amply clear  by the scrutiny committee in its report.  The reasons can be explained by the then F.C.C., Mr. S. K. Sinha, only.

7.   The reports of various scrutiny committees constituted by the F.C.C. points out that the managing committee of the society has been defiant and has never cooperated with them. But instead of taking action against the managing committee the F.C.C. Mr. S. K. Sinha nullified the findings of scrutiny committees to provide relief to the managing committee.   The reasons are best known to the then F.C.C. Mr. S. K. Sinha only.

8.    Why was Mr. Swaran Singh and others allowed to contest the elections inspite of the fact that their involvement in many grave irregularities was amply clear and even some FIRs of cheating and misguiding the members were also pending against them with the police department.  Further, the members with less than 2.35 Lacs deposit with the society were not even allowed to vote in the elections while Mr. Swaran Singh was allowed to contest the elections with a deposit of only Rs. 30,000/-.

9.    The F.C.C. in his orders dated 03.07.2006 vide which he had dismissed the orders Deputy Registrar dated 24.05.2006 vide which the Managing Committee was suspended, said that :

"Accordingly, the Deputy Registrar is directed to pass a reasoned and self-speaking order after considering the reply filed by the managing committee to the notice issued to it under Section 27 of the Act.  The Deputy Registrar may also hear Sh. Basant Singh, who has filed an application before this court or any other member of the society who may like to be heard in the instant case.  The Deputy Registrar will pass a final order under section 27 of the Act within a period of two months."

However even after more than 5 months of the orders of F.C.C., the Deputy Registrar has not taken any action in the matter, while at least another 25 members have submitted their complaints to the Deputy Registrar/Asstt. Registrar.

Copy Right 2006® to Adhoc Committee, The United Cooperative House Building Society Ltd, Mohali (India)