A cooperative society is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the court if its actions in denying plots to anyone are in substance a denial by the State.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition, petitioner seeks to challenge the decision and directions of respondents 1 and 4, to cancel the lease of plot No. 7, Ishwar Nagar, Delhi.

( 2 ) THE main question involved. In this writ petition, is, with regard to interpretation of Section 26 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972, hereinafter called the Act.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are, as under :

"delhi Development Authority, respondent No. 5 herein, in its discharge of statutory obligations, had agreed to transfer land, to Ishwar Nagar Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. , hereinafter called the Society, for the purpose of allotment of residential plots to its members. Land measuring 50 Bighas and 9 Biswas, was conveyed to the Society, vide perpetual lease-deed dated April 6, 1978. As per its bye-laws and subject to the terms and conditions of the lease-deed, executed between the President of India and the Society, and, further subject to the Act and Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973, hereinafter called the Rules, Society allotted the plots to its members in Ishwar Nagar. "

( 4 ) SHRI Rajender Nath Bhaskar, late husband of petitioner, was a founder member of the Society and, as such, in his capacity as a member, was allotted a plot, being plot No. 7, measuring about 598 sq. yds. situated in Ishwar Nagar, New Delhi. As a result of allotment, a perpetual sub-lease deed dated September 7, 1979. was executed between the President of India (the lessor), the Society, and Shri Rajinder Nath Bhaskar. The perpetual sub-lease deed was duly registered.

( 5 ) SBRI Rajender Nath Bhaskar died on September 7, 1982, leaving behind the petitioner, l. c. his wife, amongst other helrs.

( 6 ) AS per Rule 35 of the Rules, every member of the Society may give a nomination, in favour of a person, with regard to his shares/interest in the Society. However, petitioner was not aware, as to the name of the nominee, appointed by her late husband. But, petitioner was under a bonafide belief that she was the nominee of her husband, with regard to the aforesaid plot.

( 7 ) AFTER the death of her, husband, petitioner requested the Society to show the original form, with regard to the nomination, which the Society is under an obligation to maintain, in regular course of its business. For this purpose, petitioner made several requests, verbally, as well as, in writing. When Society failed to accede to the request of petitioner, then a notice was served upon the Society through an advocate. Vide letter dated September 28, 1983, petitioner was informed by the Society that son of petitioner was the nominee, with respect to the aforesaid plot. According to petitioner, it was not correct, since the petitioner bad reliably learnt that the nomination bad not been made, in favour of the son of the petitioner, by her late husband.

( 8 ) PETITIONER insisted upon her claim and, in fact, respondent no. 5 duly accepted her requests and vide its letter dated April 5, 1984, called upon petitioner to furnish various documents, mentioned therein. It is further alleged that respondents 2 and 3 were the persons, responsible for carrying on the business of the Society. Respondent no. 2 is related to petitioner and serious disputes and differences started between the family members of petitioner and that of the said respondent. Number of cases have been pending in this Court and before the Company Judge, with regard to the affairs of the various companies, in which petitioner and her family members have lawful interests.

( 9 ) ACCORDING to petitioner, respondent no. 2, in furtherance of his malafide motive, and with intention to cause injury to petitioner, persuaded and colluded with respondent no. 4. Petitioner believed that respondent no. 4, in collusion with other respondents, issued a letter dated April 2, 1984, to respondent no. 5. thereby, requiring them to cancel the allotment of plot No. 7, from the name of deceased husband of petitioner and rev