The residency requirement for cooperative society membership was inapplicable for Central Government employees at the time of the father's application, necessitating application processing for the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. (Oral)--Father of the petitioner became a member of respondent no.2-Group Housing Society i.e. Raj Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society on 10th October, 2004 when he was employed in the Central Government. Since then the father of the petitioner followed by the petitioner are running from pillar to post in getting an approval from the Registrar, Co-operative Societies (RCS) for allotment of a flat in the respondent no.2-Group Housing Society. Father of the petitioner passed away on 6th July, 2007 and thereafter the membership was transferred in the name of the petitioner on 21st September, 2008, but, neither the name of the father of the petitioner nor the petitioner was ever referred by the respondent no.1-RCS for allotment of the flat in the respondent no. 2-Group Housing Society. The plea consistently taken by the RCS till date is `The original member Late K.K.Yadav was never a resident of Delhi and he always remained posted outside Delhi although he was a Central Government employee and documents submitted by him contained addresses outside Delhi'. When despite repeated representations, the respondent no. 1 failed to forward the name of the petitioner for allotment of flat with DDA, the petitioner was constrained to file the present petition.

2. In response to the present petition, an affidavit dated 20th July, 2019 was filed by Mr. Amitabh Joshi, Asstt. Registrar, Cooperative Societies. According to the said affidavit, the father of the petitioner became a member of the society on 10th October, 2004 and at that time the circular dated 18th May, 1990 was not relevant as Rule 24 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1973 was amended and this amended rule was applicable on the date on which the father of the petitioner obtained membership of the society. Thus it was incumbent for every member of the Group Housing Society to be a resident of Delhi for a minimum period of three years at the time of applying for membership in any society. As the original member was not covered under this category, hence, his case was not considered by the Committee for allotment of the respondent no.1 constituted under Rule 90 (in short the `Rule 90 Committee') and order dated 27th December, 2017 was passed as per the decision taken by Rule 90 Committee as not a fit case for allotment.

3. After hearing the parties, this Court vide order dated 23rd March, 2022 passed the following order:

"1) Aggrieved by the fact that the petitioner's name as a member for allotment of a flat by DDA in the respondent No. 2-Group Housing Society was not being allowed, resulting in the order dated 27th December 2017, the petitioner preferred the present petition.

2) According to the petitioner, the father of the petitioner became the member of the respondent No. 2-Society on 10th October 2004 when his father was employed in Central Government. His father passed away on 6 July 2007, whereafter, the membership was transferred in the name of the petitioner on 21st September 2008. However, his name was rejected for forwarding it to DDA for allotment of a flat to the petitioner in the respondent No. 2-Society on 27th December 2017 on the ground that the original member Late Sh. K.K. Yadav was never a resident of Delhi and he remained posted outside Delhi although he was a Central Government employee. The petitioner has placed on record the circular dated 18th May 1990 which amended the 'bye-law 5' and the Proviso thereof exempted the officers of All India Service and employees of Central Government and Public Undertakings of the Central Government and Delhi Administration for being residents