( 1 ) PETITIONER by this writ petition challenges the order dated 29. 6. 1987, passed by the Registrar of co-operative Societies, who rejected the petitioner s claim tor being accepted as a member o ( respondent No. 4/society. The said order had been challenged in revision be I ore the lt. Governor, who vide order dated 14. 10. 1987, dismissed the revision petition, holding the same to be not maintainable, since it challenged an administrative order.

( 1 ) RULE in this case was issued on 18. 11. 1988, and earlier vide order dated 22. 4. 1988, a plot measuring 300 sq. yards, had been directed to be kept unallotted. Petitioner, Sh. Satish Chander Saxena is the son of sh. P. C. Saxena, who was a member of respondent No-4/society. The case of the petitioner is that his father Sh. P. C. Saxena, in the year 1972, had requested the Society lor transfer of membership in favour of his son/petitioner. Such transfer was permissible under the rules since the petitioner was a blood relation.

( 3 ) PETITIONER s case is that the Delhi administration vide its order dated 29. 10. 1972, conveyed the approval of the administrator to the Society for the said transfer. A perusal of letter dated 29. 10. 1974, of the Delhi administration, appearing at page 30 of the paper book, shows that the transfer had been approved, subject to furnishing of indemnity bond by the tranter or/transferee and fulfilment of the requirements as given in the remarks column against the persons mentioned in the said letter. As far as petitioner is concerned, the remarks given were to the following effeet: -

"subject to fixation of notarial Stamp by both" - (meaning the transferor and transferee.)

( 4 ) LEARNED senior counsel for the petitioner, mr. V. K. Makhija, has taken me through the correspondence, filed with the petition, in support of his contention that the petitioner duly complied with the requisite formalities. Photocopy of letter dated 28. 4. 1975, of the society/respondent No. 4 to the Land and Building department mentions the name of petitioner s father at s. No. 3 with enclosure of two indemnity bonds as well as the notarial stamps, as mentioned in para 2, being sent by the Society. As regards the question of non furnishing of notarial stamps, the matter really stands concluded vide a photocopy of letter dated 28. 1. 1976 of respondent No. 4/society to the petitioner s father. By the said letter, while giving the account of petitioner s father, a sum of Rs. 6. 00 on account of two notarial Stamps; of Rs,3. 00 each, incurred by the Society was demanded. The said letter also states as under

"regarding the allotment of plots by "draw of lots" the Delhi administration has not yet fixed the date. As soon as we hear from them regarding fixation of the date, the same will be intimated to you. "

( 5 ) THE Society again vide its letter dated 17. 9. 1977, informed the petitioner s father that the transfer has not yet been approved finally by the Land and Building Department. Even in this letter, there is no mention of non-compliance of any formality. Not only this, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies vide letter dated 15. 5. 1986, addressed to the petitioner, confirmed that the case for transfer of membership of petitioner s father to the petitioner had been approved by the Land and Building Department vide letter dated 29. 10. 1974. The petitioner made further representations regarding allotment of plot to him and he was advised by the DDA Co-operative Societies Cell to approach the registrar of Co-operative Societies for clearance of his membership in respondent No,4/society. It, is in these circumstances that the petitioner approached the registrar of Co-operative Societies, when the impugned order was passed.

( 6 ) MS. ZUBEDA Begum, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, submits that in this case the petitioner s father had requested for refund of share money and his resignation had been duly accepted by the society on 12. 10. 1980. Further, that the chequ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document