The central legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section 60 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972, and its impact on membership disputes and plot allotment.

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. This is an application moved by Shri Vinay Kumar Srivastava seeking review of the judgment dated 11.4.2001. The Review Applicant prays for setting aside the impugned judgment in the alternative, a direction to include the name of the applicant in the draw of lots and/or alternatively to reserve one plot in respect of the claim of the applicant.

2. This case has a long history of Applications/Review Petitions. For the sake of clarity and comprehension, it would be necessary to recapitulate the facts and events, culminating in the present Review Petition.

3. On 11.4.2001, this Bench took up for disposal CWP No. 4847/1998 titled "Subhash Behari Lal v. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Ors." after issuance of Rule. The parties to the writ petition were Subhash Behari Lalpetitioner No. 1, Col. A.N. Bhatnagar-petitioner No. 2, Dr. Shalini Nigam nee Miss Shalini Saran-petitioner No. 3, Respondent No. 1 is The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Delhi Government, respondents No. 2 is the Administrator, Bhatnagar Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. and respondent No. 3 is D.D.A.

4. The issue of membership and eligibility for participation in the draw of lot for allotment of plots had been pending for quite some time. It was urged before the Court by the counsel for the petitioners Mr. Chaudhary as well as the counsel for respondent-Society and the Administrator of the Society Mr. V. Shankara that the aspirants in the waiting list were 29 against 11 available plots. Further, after an elaborate exercise, the Administrator had finalized the list, which had been approved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. In these circumstances, the writ petition was disposed of directing that the list, as prepared by the Administrator dated 10.2.1994 and after completion of all formalities, be submitted to D.D.A. for purposes of draw of lots and D.D.A. would also comply with the requisite formalities and conduct a draw of lots within three months.

5. Subsequently, after the disposal of the writ petition, petitioner Subhash Behari Lal and Shalini Nigam moved the Court that although the Registrar of Cooperative Societies had included their name at Seriall No. 2 and 9, however, due to non-clearance of certain dues, their case for allotment was being held up and their name was not being included in the draw of lots. Vide orders dated 5.3.2002, the Court took cognizance of the deposit of Rs. 5,85,000/- each by the said members and directed inclusion of their names in the draw of lots. We are informed that pursuant thereto, the draw of lots has taken place and the said petitioners have been found to be eligible and also allotted plots. It is at this stage that the Review Applicant enters the arena of battle.

6. The Review Applicant Vinay Kumar Srivastava moved CM No. 613/2002 in the present writ petition. As matters of Cooperative Societies were being listed before Division Bench, as per amended roster, it was also so listed. The Review Application came to be listed before the Division Bench. In the said application, the applicant averred that his membership of the Society based on succession from his late Grandfather was being questioned by the Administrator. There was also the question of their being a nominee. Consequently, the applicant was constrained to file a case under Section 60 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 and the pendency of the aforesaid case for reference of dispute to Arbitration was within the knowledge of the Administrator, which was filed in 1994, but the same remained pending till 2001. He submitted that the pendency of the Arbitration case was not informed by the Administrator to the Court and this has adversely affected the applicant by passing of the orders dated 11.4.2001, wherein the applicant had not been included as a party. Suspension of the order dated 11.4.2001 was, thereforee, prayed for. This was accompanied by another application bearing No. CM No. 1051/2001 under O