IMPORTANT POINT
The only way by which sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 and Rule 28 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973, can be harmoniously construed is to construe sub-rule (2) to Rule 25 to mean that the deemed cessation of the person concerned from the membership of the society is the society in respect of which the disqualification was incurred.

Headnote:(i) Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973-Rules 24 and 25(4), 28-Disqualification for Membership-When an individual had become a member of two co-operative societies of same class-Disqualification u/s 25-Registrar has discretion to direct removal of individual from membership of either or both the cooperative societies-Deemed cessation of person concerned from membership of the society is the society in respect of which disqualification was incurred-Harmonious construction of sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 and Rule 28-Person concerned does not cease to be a member of both the societies.
       Held that under sub-rule (2) the deemed cessation from membership of the person concerned is in relation to the society pertaining to which disqualifications are incurred. A plain reading of Rule 28 makes it crystal clear that the Registrar when becomes aware of the fact that an individual has become a member of two co-operative societies of the same class which obviously is a disqualification under Rule 25 then he has the discretion to direct removal of the said individual from the membership of either or both the co-operative societies. Rule 28 in our considered opinion cannot be held to be otiose and must be allowed to have its full play. In this view of the matter the only way by which sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 and Rule 28 can be harmoniously construed is to construe sub-rule (2) to Rule 25 to mean that the deemed cessation of the person concerned from the membership of the society is the society in respect of which the disqualification was incurred. In the case in hand the disqualification which the appellant incurred was in respect of his membership of the Tribal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. as he could not have become a member of the said society as he was already a member of Dronacharaya Co-operative Group Housing Society, and therefore, by operation of sub-rule (2) he would deem to have ceased to be a member from the Tribal Co-operative Housing Society right from the inception in November, 1983 and not from the Dronacharaya Co-operative Group Housing Society. (Para 7)
       Further held : Sub-rule (1) disqualifies a person for admission as a member of a housing society if he or his spouse or any of his dependent children is a member of any other housing society. The disqualification in question obviously attaches to membership of the second society and has no connection with his membership of the first society. In view of the aforesaid embargo contained in sub-rule (1) to Rule 25, sub-rule (2) by its operation bring in the fiction of deemed cessation from the membership of such society from the date when the disqualification was incurred and such fiction of deemed cessation has nothing to do with the membership of the first society. This being the position, sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 when read with sub-rule (1) of the said Rule is not susceptible of a construction that the person concerned ceased to be a member of both the societies. In view of our aforesaid construction of sub-rule (2) of Rule 25, the conclusion is irresistible that the Registrar while passing the impugned order dated 23rd February, 1993 and Lt. Governor while dismissing the appellant s Revision by his order dated 25th August, 1993 as well as the High Court in the impugned Judgment dated 20th March, 1996 committed gross error in holding that the appellant ceases to be a member of both the societies under sub-rule (2) of Rule 25. The aforesaid orders, therefore, are wholly unsustainable and cannot be sustained. (Para 8)
       (ii) INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES-Rule of harmonious construction-Effect should be given to all the provisions.
       Held : It is a cardinal principle of construction of a statute or the statutory rule that efforts should be made in construing the different provisions, so that, each provision will have its play and in the event of any conflict a harmonious construction should be given. Further a statute or a rule made thereunder should be read as a whole and one provision should be construed with reference to the other provision so as to make the rule consistent and any construction which would bring any inconsistency or repugnancy between one provision and the other should be avoided. One rule cannot be used or defeat another rule in the same rules unless it is impossible to effect harmonisation between them. The well-known principle of harmonious construction is that effect should be given to all the provisions, and therefore, this Court has held in several cases that a construction that reduces one of the provisions to a dead letter is not a harmonious construction as one part is being destroyed and consequently court should avoid such a construction. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

Pattanaik, J.-Leave granted.

2. In this appeal, the order of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Delhi Administration dated 23rd Fabruary, 1993 directing that the appellant ceases to be a member of Dronacharaya Co-operative Group Housing Society as well as Tribal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., the Revisional Order of the Lt. Governor, Delhi dated 25th August, 1993 dismissing the Revision filed by the appellant as well as the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 20th march, 1996 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4924 of 1993 have been challenged.

3. Admittedly, the appellant became a member of Dronacharaya Co-operative Group Housing Society on 9th August, 1980. The said Society was allotted land within the Union Territory of Delhi by Delhi Administration for construction of flats for allotment to its members. The appellant being a member of the society desirous of purchasing a flat on being directed by the society deposited initially a sum of Rs. 8,000/- and thereafter different sums of money on different dates, in all Rs.3,35,015/- by 20th of June, 1991. While he was a member of Dronacharaya Co-operative Group Housing Society, he also got himself enrolled as a member of another Society called Tribal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. on 29th of November, 1983, but later on he resigned from the said Tribal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. on 7.6.1991. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies issued a notice to the appellant on 22nd October, 1992 in exercise of his powers under sub-rule (4) of Rule 25 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Rules ) stating therein that the appellant could be enrolled as a member of the Tribal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. by filing a false affidavit and declaring that neither he nor his wife nor any of his dependent relations has been a member or any other House Building Co-operative Societies and thus has incurred the disqualification under Rule 25(1)(c)(iii) of the Rules and consequently ceases to be a member of the society under sub-rule (2) of Rule 25. The Registrar called upon the appellant to reply to the show-cause notice within 15 days from the date of issue of the notice. The appellant in his reply indicated that he was not aware of the relevant provisions of the Rules prohibiting a member of one society to become a member of another Co-operative Society. At any rate he has tendered his resignation from the Tribal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. since June 1991 much prior to the issuance of the notice of show-cause, and therefore, the alleged disqualification under Rule 25(1)(c)(iii) was no longer subsisting. The Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, however, by his order dated February 23, 1993 came to the conclusion that the appellant has incurred the disqualification for membership under Rule 25(1)(c)(iii) of the Rules as he got himself enrolled as a member of the Tribal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. while continuing as a member of the Dronacharaya Co-operative Group Housing Society, and therefore, his membership of both the societies ceases. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant preferred a Revision to the Lt. Governor of Delhi and the said Revision having been dismissed by order dated 25th August, 1993, the appellant preferred a writ petition in Delhi High Court. The High Court by Judgment dated 20th March, 1996 agreed with the conclusion of the Registrar and came to hold that by virtue of Rule 25(2) the appellant automatically became disqualified for the membership of both the societies and as such there is no error with the orders passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and affirmed by the Lt. Governor, hence the present appeal.

4. Mr. Bobde, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that under sub-rule (2) of Rule 25, when a member of one housing society incurs the disqualification under Rule 25(1)(c)(iii) then from date of such disqualification he would deem to hav

Click Here to Read the rest of this document