Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 4224
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJIV KHANNA & SUNITA GUPTA, JJ.
RAMANDEEP KAUR AND OTHERS – Petitioners
Versus
REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES & ANOTHER – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4491 of 2015
Decided On : 23-09-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeshwar Kumar Gupta.
For the Respondents: Mr. Peeyosh Kalra, Ms. Sona Babbar and Mr. Sameer Abhayankar.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of Rule 24(2) of the 1973 Rules in the enrolment process of the cooperative society.
Headnote:
Cooperative Society - Enrolment of Members - Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 - Rule 24(2) - Rule 25(4) of the 2007 Rules - Summary of Acts and Sections: Rule 24(2) of the 1973 Rules, Rule 25(4) of the 2007 Rules - The court discussed the violation of Rule 24(2) of the 1973 Rules and the applicability of Rule 25(4) of the 2007 Rules in the enrolment of members by the cooperative society.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 16th April, 2015, which held their membership in the cooperative society as illegal and void due to violation of Rule 24(2) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the enrolment of the petitioners as members was in violation of Rule 24(2) of the 1973 Rules and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The legal issues raised by the petitioners included the principles of natural justice, the Registrar's powers to cease memberships, the applicability of old rules after the enactment of new rules, and the validity of the enrolment after three years.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the enrolment process violated Rule 24(2) of the 1973 Rules, and the subsequent deposits made by the petitioners did not confer any rights due to the initial illegality.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
1. Ramandeep Kaur and nine others in this writ petition have impugned and prayed for setting aside of the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 16th April, 2015, passed in the revision petition filed by them, challenging the order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies dated 23rd August, 2010. The order dated 23rd August, 2010 is also challenged. The impugned orders hold and declare that the membership granted to the petitioners by the Pragya Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited, the second respondent before us, was illegal and void being in contravention of Rule 24(2) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 (1973 Rules, for short).
2. Pragya Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited, is a cooperative society registered with the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, the first respondent, under the then Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 (1972 Act, for short). The cooperative society was allotted a plot of land bearing No. 1B, Sector-2, Dwarka, New Delhi for the construction of multi-storeyed flats for its members. The date of allotment of land, date of sanction of the layout and building plans, date of commencement of construction and the date on which the construction was completed have been withheld and have not been brought on record. However, it is apparent that by August, 2007, the month and year in which the petitioners were enrolled, the construction of flats on the said plot was at an advanced stage. By July, 2009 construction of 150 flats was almost complete, except for final finishing.
3. The petitioners and the cooperative society proclaim and predicated their case on the advertisements published in the newspapers; the Pioneer (English) and Amar Ujala (Hindi) on 21st August, 2007, inviting applications from the public to fill up ten vacancies of membership. The petitioners procured the application forms on 22nd August, 2007 and had submitted their applications with the cooperative society. The management committee, it is averred, on 2nd September, 2007 had accepted the applications and passed a resolution under Rule 24(1)(ii) read with Rule 30 of the 1972 Rules. Upon enrolment, the petitioners paid the share money and the admission fee on 2nd September, 2007.
4. The management committee resolution register, it is stated, has been lost and a FIR was registered on 5th January, 2009. The purported or alleged resolution enrolling the petitioners has not been filed and is unavailable.
5. The cooperative society had by their letter dated 5th September, 2007, informed the Registrar, Cooperative Societies about admission/enrolment of the petitioners.
6. It is the case of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies that they had, by their letter dated 10th September, 2007, directed the cooperative society not to pursue the matter of enrolment of the present petitioners as members. This letter and its receipt are disputed by the petitioners and the cooperative society.
7. In the Special General Body Meeting convened and held on 20th January, 2008, the earlier Management Committee of the cooperative society was removed and an ad hoc committee was elected to take care of the affairs of the society. By letter dated 15th May, 2008, Sub-Division Magistrate, Karol Bagh was appointed as the Returning Officer to conduct the election of the management committee of the second respondent under Section 31(1) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act 2003 (2003 Act, for short). Another order dated 5th October, 2009 of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies appointed an Administrator. On 16th February, 2010 a new Administrator was appointed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. The Returning Officer, on examining the list of members, noticed that the said names included the ten petitioners. A general notice for holding of elections was issued on 30th March, 2010 and the ten petitioners were barred from participating in the elections as voters for violation of Rule 24(2) of the 1973 Rules. Aggrieved, the petition
