ORDER

In Writ Petition No. 20 of 1994

1. The petitioners are the practising advocates. They were the members of the Supreme Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., 110, Lawyers Chamber, Supreme Court Compound, New Delhi, for short the Housing Society. By a resolution dated 22-2-1990 passed by the general body of the Housing Society, the petitioners are expelled from the membership of that society, that resolution is approved by the Registrar on 12-8-1991. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is, therefore, filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs :

(a) to quash the said resolution;

(b) to declare the appointment of Architect as bad, arbitrary and illegal;

(c) to declare the dispensation of residential qualification for membership of society as arbitrary and illegal;

(d) to declare the draw of lots dated 14-4-1990 and 18-7-1992 concerning Phase I and Phase II respectively as arbitrary and illegal;

(e) to appoint an Administrator forthwith and other consequential reliefs.

2. When a question was put to the counsel for the petitioners as to how the writ petition is maintainable, it was contended that the expulsion was per se arbitrary and they are entitled to challenge on the ground of violation of Article 14. It was also contended that in similar circumstances, this Court in Raj Rani v. Delhi Admn.[ had considered elaborately the scheme of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 for short the Act and that, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to seek the remedy. When a further question was put to the petitioners that when they had sought for the above reliefs in the High Court in a writ petition, but they were negatived and after it was negatived and an SLP No. 630 of 1994 was filed in this Court against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, how the present writ petition is maintainable, the counsel for the petitioner asserted that the order of the High Court does not operate as res judicata since it was not a speaking order and, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to seek the same reliefs by filing the present writ petition.

3. We are afraid that we cannot accede to any of the contentions raised by the petitioners. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 454 of 1989 in the High Court against the order of the Registrar under the Act made in respect of the arbitration proceedings initiated against the appointment of the Architect by the General Body of the Society, which came to be dismissed on 7-4-1989. Without filing any special leave petition under Article 136, and suppressing the fact of dismissal of the above writ petition the petitioners filed WP No. 58 of 1989 in this Court under Article 32 which this Court by order dated January 25, 1990 permitted the petitioners to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue the remedy by way of writ petition in the High Court. Then they filed Writ Petition No. 527 of 1990 challenging the constitutional validity of Section 34*" of the Act and also sought for mandamus to appoint Administrator under Section 32 and also challenging the appointment of Architect as illegal, the said writ petition was dismissed on 16-7-1993. While filing the special leave petition against the said order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. It may also be relevant to note that when other members of the Society filed Writ Petition No. 561 of 1990 etc. this Court comprised of a Bench of three Judges ultimately dismissed the above writ petition by order dated April 25, 1990.

4. In the judgment, the Delhi High Court pointed out that despite the willingness of the court to give direction to the society to withdraw the expulsion, subject to the petitioners paying all the arrears with interest thereon, the petitioners had not availed of the indulgence, nor sought any amendment to the writ petition to challenge their expulsion, apart from non-availment of the statutory remedy. The conduct thus disentitles the petitioners of the remedy under Article 32. Tha