( 1 ). This is a petition filed by the petitioners praying, inter alia, to declare that amenoed Rule 53 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973 (for short the Rules) as unconstitutional a (nd consequently any business transacted at meetings pursuant to the said Rule to be,illegal and inoperative. The petitioners have further prayed thatsec. 34 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 be declared unconstitutional and ultra vires of the Constitution. Lastly, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Registrar, Co-opeative Societies to forthwith appoint an Administrator of the respondent-Society under Sec. 32 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972.

( 2 ). Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that the petitioners were members of The Supreme Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. The land to the Society was given on 3rd May, 1983 at Mayur Vihar Phase-I. The Society appointed M/s Raj Rewal as their architect. The main grievance of the petitioners had been that the appointment of the Architect Mr. Raj Rewal was illegal as he charged 3 per cent as his professional fees on the cost of project. According to the petitioners the appointment of the said Architect on 6th January, 1984 by the General Body was illegal as there was no quorum nor the agenda circulated contained the item of such appointment.

( 3 ). The petitioners who are advocates appeared in person inter alia argued that under bye law 19 (v) of the Society an item not on agenda ought not to have been discussed. The petitioners moved theregitrar, Cooperative Societies under Sec. 60 of the Delhi Cooperataive Societies Act on 5th September, 1986. The disputes were referred to the Arbitrator who rejected the claims of the petitioners. Against the said order the petitioners filed an appeal under the Act before Delhi Co-operative Tribunal which was also dismissed on 20th February, 1989 by a well reasoned order. It is important to reproduce the following paragraphs of the said order:-

"1 have considered the averments made on behalf of the appellants on both the counts. I find that it has rightly been held by the learned Arbitrator that the question of approval of the plans prepared by the Architect cannot be disassocited from the appointment of that very Architect as the issue of approvals of plans is co-related to the issue of appoitment of the Architect. The issue of approval of the plans has not been challenged on behalf of the appellants. Further, I find that the appellants were always present at the time of both the meetings of the Managing Committee and therefore it has rightly been held by the. Arbitrator that since no timely objection was raised, it does not now lie with the appellants to assail the appointment of the Architect. Coming to the next issue regarding the question of bifurcation of the Society, I again find that the learned Arbitrator has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellants are at liberty to pursue this matter with the Registrar Cooperative Societies. . The above decision, to my mind, therefore, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. "

( 4 ). Aggrieved by the said order the petitioners filed a writ petition in this Court being Civil Writ No. 454 of 1989 on 6th April, 1989. The said writ petition was dismissed on 7th April, 1989 in limine. The petitionres instead of filing a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court for reasons best known to them, though as. pointed out earlier both are lawyers by profession, filed a writ petition being CW 58 of 1989 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Hon ble Supreme Court. In the said writ petition the petitioners say they have prayed for the same prayers as have been agitated in the present writ petition before us. However, the said writ petition filed before the Supreme Court was withdrawn by the petitioners on 25th January, 1990, before even notice was issued therein, with the liberty to