Raj Rani: K. V. Johar: Surinder Nath Luthra vs Delhi Administration

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1976 Supreme(SC) 497

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Raj Rani and others, etc. Petitioners
Versus
Delhi Administration and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn Nos. 340 of 1972, 1526 of 1973 and 286 of 1974,
D/- 10-12-1976.
Advocates Appeared
P. H. Parekh and Miss Manju Jetley, Advocates, for Petitioners in W.P. 340/72 excepting Petitioner No. 59 and for Petitioners in W.P. 1526/73; Petitioner No. 59 in W.P. No. 340/72. In Person; Mr. Yogeshwar 1901 Prasad, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. S. K. Bagga, Mrs. S. Bagga and Miss Yesh Bagga, Advocates with him), for Petitioner in W.P. No. 286/74. Mr. Niren De, Attorney General (In W. P. 340); Mr. Sardar Bahadur Saharya, and Mr. Vishnu Bahadur Saharya, Advocates with him), for Respondents Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 15 in W.P. 340/72 and Respondents in all the W.Ps. Mr. K.J. John, Advocate for M/s. J. S. Dadachanji and Co., (for Nos. 2, 6, 8, 10, 12) in W.P. 340 and 1526 and (for Nos. 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12) in W.P. 286/74 and M/s. S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja and P.N. Puri, Advocates (for Nos. 13-178) in W.P. 1526/73, for Respondents.

Advocates:
J.B.DADACHAN, K.J.JOHN, K.R.NAGARAJA, Manju Jetley, NIREN DEY, P.H.Parekh, P.N.PURI, S.Baggar, S.K.Bagga, S.K.MEHTA, SARDAR BAHADUR SAHARYA, TOGESHVAR PRASAD, VISHNU BAHADUR SAHARYA, YUSH BAGGA

Headnote:
Constitution Of India,1950 - Bombay Act - Section 46A - Nominated Managing Committee - Election - Court appointed Chairman to convene fix date and hold meeting of New Friends Co-operative House Building Society Ltd- referred to as Society in accordance with provisions of Delhi Co-operative Socieities - This meeting was directed to be held for purpose of electing members of New Managing Committee Chairman was directed to look into each and every disputed question of membership- Chairman was further directed to decide whether persons had been rightly or wrongly declared to be defaulters- order further directed that if Chairman came to conclusion that person had been wrongly declared to be a defaulter Chairman would include him or her list of members- Chairman was also asked to give effect to all orders of this Court already made in regard to persons who were declared defaulters and who according to orders of this Court payment of money are not and cannot be treated as defaulters –Held, Plots among persons referred to in sub-paragraphs of paragraph report shall be in order of priority mentioned there and already earmarked for them- If plots which are already earmarked for persons in sub-paragraphs are not available then there will be allotments to those persons by draw of lots first among those in sub-paragraph and thereafter among those in sub-paragraph will prepare a list of persons to whom plots are so allotted and send copies of list to new Managing Committee plots remain to be allotted allotment or allotments shall strictly be in accordance with order of priority laid down in paragraph report- Such allotments shall be made by means of draw of lots first among persons referred to in sub-paragraph thereafter among those in sub-paragraph and thereafter among those of paragraph of his report will prepare a list persons to whom plots are so allotted and send copies of list to new Managing Committee and Delhi Development Authority and inform persons whom such allotments are made- Any person referred to in sub-paragraphs report who is allotted any plot shall within from receipt of communication from effect that a particular plot has been allotted to him enquire from Delhi Development Authority as to sum payable by him to Delhi Development Authority as aforesaid and upon receipt of reply from Delhi Development Authority pay sum to latter by a Bank Draft with receipt of reply- In default of such payment allotment to him will stand cancelled- In event of such cancellation allotment may be made to next person if any in that sub-paragraph Upon allotment of land to any person mentioned in this Report each shall pay Society a sum within one month from date of such allotment as and by way of costs relating to these proceedings- In default payment of such sum allotment to such person shall stand cancelled- In event of any such default procedure laid down in paragraphs hereof shall be followed- To sum up- In event of any such default allotment may be made to next person if any in sub-paragraph group of defaulting persons and thereafter to next sub-paragraph group of persons - Order accordingly

Judgement

RAY, C.J. - This Court on 29 August, 1974 appointed Shri Debabrata Mookerjee Chairman to convene, fix the date and hold the meeting of New Friends Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. referred to as the Society in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Co-operative Socieities Act, 1972. This meeting was directed to be held for the purpose of electing the members of the New Managing Committee. The Chairman was directed to look into each and every disputed question of membership. The Chairman was further directed to decide whether the persons had been rightly or wrongly declared to be defaulters. The order further directed that if the Chairman came to the conclusion that the person had been wrongly declared to be a defaulter, the Chairman would include him or her in the list of members. The Chairman was also asked to give effect to all orders of this Court already made in regard to persons who were declared defaulters and who, according to orders of this Court on payment of money are not and cannot be treated as defaulters. The Chairman was asked to go into cases where money had been sent and not accepted. If the Chairman came to the conclusion that money had been wrongly not accepted, the Chairman would decide the same in accordance with Rules and Bye-laws of the society. There are further details in the order dated 29 August. 1974.

2. In the order dated 29 August, 1974 Brij Mohan Malhotra was given liberty to adduce proof before the Chairman that the money was tendered within time. If the Chairman came to the conclusion that it was tendered in time, he would decide in accordance with Rules and bye-laws of the society.

3. The Chairman was entitled to scrutinise whether any person had been either illegally brought in as a member or illegally removed, having regard to the rules, bye-laws and regulations of the society. Inder Bir Kaur alleged that she had been illegally removed from membership. The Chairman was directed to go into the question.

4. The order was made in two writ petitions Nos. 340 of 1972 and 1526 of 1973 and in a number of miscellaneous applications.

5. On 6 July, 1971 the Lt. Governor passed an award directing the Society to pay Rs. 22 lakhs to the Delhi Administration. On 9 July, 1971 the Lt. Governor by a notification removed the elected Managing Committee and appointed a nominated Managing Committee under R. 56 of the Rules made under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Act which applied to Delhi. The term of the Managing Committee was for one year.

6. On 23 October, 1971 the nominated Managing Committee passed a resolution to make the award rule of the Court. On 18 December, 1971 the nominated Managing Committee passed a resolution for having direct sub-leases. On 22 January, 1972 the nominated Managing Committee called for more funds. On 5 July, 1972 the Lt. Governor issued second notification extending the term of the nominated Managing Committee by two years.

7. The Society was the subject-matter of two writ petitions. 287 members of the Society filed writ petition No. 340 of 1972 hereinafter referred to Raj Ranis petition. The members challenged the vires of Rule 56 of the Society on the ground that the rule was ultra vires Section 71 of the Bombay Act and further that the rule was bad on account of excessive delegation. The petitioners contended that action under Rule 56 could not be taken without complying with the provisions of Section 46A of the Bombay Act which was applicable to Delhi at the relevant time. The petitioners also challenged some notifications on the ground that the Lt Governor having exercised his powers once could not extend the term. In short, it was said that the power of the Lt. Governor was exhausted. The other challenges were that the notifications were not speaking orders and were made mala fide. The broad challenge in the petition was against the extension of term of the Managing Committee. On 29 August, 1972 Rule Nisi wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document