( 1 ) THESE two appeals under Clause 1. 0 of Letters Patent read with Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 are directed against the common judgment of learned Single Judge in C. W. P. Nos. 60 and 61 of 1987, though challenge is the subject-matter of C. W. P. 60 of 1987.

( 2 ) FACTUAL scenario in which the appeals have been filed, sans unnecessary details, is as follows: shri B. B. Chibber, appellant in LPA 287/96 was expelled from the membership of Anandlok Cooperative Group Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as the Society) by Resolution dated 16. 4. 1986. The said resolution was sent to Registrar of Cooperative Societies (in short the Registrar) functioning under the Delhi cooperative Societies Act, 1972 (in short the Act) and Delhi Cooperative Societies rules, 1972 (in short Rules), for approval as required under Rule 36 of the Rules. Disapproval by the Registrar was communicated in terms of letter dated 4. 12. 1986. Same formed subject-matter of challenge by the Society in C. W. P. 60/87. By impugned judgment, learned Single Judge held that after expiry of six months period stipulated in Rule 36 (3) of the Rules, the Registrar became functus officio and could not have passed an order of disapproval. For coming to this decision, learned single Judge relied on the decision in Balasinor Nagrik Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Babubhai Shankerlal Pandaya, AIR 1987 SC 849. The said view is challenged by B. B. Chibber, appellant in LPA 287/96 and by the Registrar in LPA 23/97.

( 3 ) COMMON stand of the appellants in the two appeals is that ratio of the decision of Balasinor s case (supra), has no application to the facts of the present case as the provision which was under consideration before the Apex Court is conceptually different. There is no provision analogous to the deeming provision which was under consideration in the case before the Apex Court. Learned Counsel for the respondent Society, on the other hand, submitted that historical backdrop of Rule 36 (3) clearly shows that Legislature wanted a positive action to be taken within a stipulated time and any inaction on the part of the Registrar would automatically lead to the conclusion that resolution by the Society shall have to be deemed to be approved. Though not specifically spelt out, such deemed operation has to be inferred and that would be a harmonious interpretation of the provision. It is also submitted that Rule 36 (3), as it stood after amendment w. e. f. 24. 5. 1982 limits the scope of enquiry by the Registrar. In the case at hand/the Registrar disapproved the esolution on grounds which are not available to be considered in terms of Rule 36 (3 ). It was submitted that the decision of the Apex Court s in Balasinor s case (supra), had full application to the facts of the case.

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate rival submissions it is necessary to take note of Rule 36 which is pivotal provision around which the present dispute revolves. The said provision, prior to its amendment w. e. f. 24. 5. 1982 reads as follows:

"rule 36. Procedure for expulsion of members- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws, a member who has been persistently defaulting in payment of dues or the payment of claims, made by a housing society for raising funds to fulfill its objects has been failing to comply with the provisions of the bye-laws regarding sales produce through the society or, other matter in connection with his dealings with the society or who, in the opinion of the committee has brought disrepute to the society or he has done other acts detrimental to the interest or proper working of the society, the society may, by a resolution passed by a majority of not less than three-fourth of the members entitled to vote who are present at a general meeting held for the purpose expel a member from the society: provided that no resolution shall be valid, unless the member concerned has been given an opportunity of representing his case to the general b