Jayant Nath, J.

1. By the present appeal, the appellant challenges the dismissal of his writ petition vide judgment dated 20.07.2012. In brief, it is the contention of the appellant that his brother-Ramesh Kumar Jain became a member of respondent No. 2-Vardhman Co-operative House Building Society in October 1966. The said brother-Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jain on 02.02.1976 resigned from the said membership. It is further stated that as per the rules, the membership could be transferred in favour of the appellant being a real brother (blood relation) of the said Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jain. In fact, Ramesh Kumar Jain had in his resignation expressed his desire and had requested respondent No. 2-Society to transfer all his rights, interest, etc. and membership of the Society in favour of the appellant.

2. It is further contended by the appellant that the resignation of Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jain was accepted by respondent No. 2 and simultaneously it was agreed to transfer the membership in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant paid admission fee of Rs. 10/-. on 02.02.1976. The decision to accept the resignation and transfer the membership in favour of the appellant was ratified by the Management Committee of respondent No. 2 on 24.02.1976.

3. It is further contended by the appellant that having been inducted as member of respondent No. 2, he has been paying various amounts which have fallen due and demanded by respondent No. 2. He claims that even the lease amount accrued till date with respect to the plot in question stands paid by the appellant.

4. It appears that in January 1984 a draw of lots took place by respondents whereby Plot No. 23, Arihant Nagar, near Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi was allotted in favour of Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jain, the brother of the appellant. Hence the appellant raised an objection. It is contended that respondent No. 2 submitted all necessary documents and papers to respondent No. 1. It is stated that this was done on 07.07.1984. Respondent No. 1 accepted the receipt of letter dated 07.07.1984 vide its letter dated 25.07.1985 and directed respondent No. 2 to rectify its records. A reminder was also written on 06.08.1986 by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1.

5. Subsequently the appellant received a letter dated 06.10.1986 whereby it was informed to the appellant that the allotment in his favour stood cancelled on the ground that the original allotment was in the name of Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jain who had concealed facts and filed a false affidavit regarding non-ownership of any residential property either by him or his wife or dependent children within the area of Delhi when in fact he already owned a residential property in Delhi. The letter was purported to be in continuance of show cause notices dated 07.10.1985 and 14.01.1986. The appellant contends that no show cause notice was received by him and that in all probability the show cause notices were addressed to his brother who had nothing to do with the plot in question.

6. Similarly, a representation was made by the appellant which was rejected on 12.12.1990. Hence the appellant filed the present writ petition seeking following reliefs.

“(i) CERTIORARI thereby quashing the communication dated 06.10.1986 and 12.12.1990 issued by respondent No. 1.

(ii) Mandamus directing the respondents to allot plot No. 23, at Arihant Nagar, Near Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi in favour of the petitioner and handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the same to the petitioner.”

7. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that after his brother-Sh. Ramesh Kumar Jain had resigned from the membership of respondent No. 2-Society on 02.02.1976, the appellant had become a member of the said Society. Hence, the acts, deeds or mis-deeds, if any, of his brother are of no consequence inasmuch as the appellant is now the member of the Society and there are no allegations about any wrong act or concealment by him. It is hence contended that the allotme