Court emphasized that levying charges on a member without providing possession of property is unreasonable, particularly in long-standing disputes spanning decades.

Judgment :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. This is a petition filed by the Petitioner–Mr. R.K. Tolani, having along and chequered history.

3. According to the Petitioner, he originally became one of the founding members of the ESIC Friends Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter,‘the Society’)in the year1981.He was further re-issued the share certificate of the Society in 1997.

4. The Petitioner is stated to have taken a loan from the LIC in 1999 for the allotment of his flat in the Society and thereafter, regularly paid the instalment amount.

5. Sometime in 2007, the grievance of the Petitioner was that the cost of the flat was increased from Rs. 1.20 Lakhs to 3.60 Lakhs, then to 4.95 Lakhs and there after, to Rs.6.85 Lakhs. Thus disputes arose between the various aggrieved members and the Society, which led to filing of a Petition u/s 70 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 (hereinafter, ‘the DCS Act’), for arbitration and for adjudication on the allotment of flats.

6. With respect to the said disputes, claim petition was admitted vide order dated 25^th March, 2008 passed by the RCS and reference was made for adjudication of disputes. In the said order, one Mr. Mohan Lal Dawar was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes.

7. The Society then challenged this order dated 25^th March, 2008 and an appeal was filed u/s 112 of the DCS Act. The said appeal was rejected by the Cooperative Tribunal, Delhi, vide order dated 1^st June 2009.

8. Thesaidorderdated1^stJune2009,passedbytheCooperativeTribunal, Delhi, was challenged by the Society before this Court in Writ Petition(Civil) No.8998/2009 titled ESIC Friends Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. vs. Sh. R.K. Tolani & Ors.

9. In the said writ petition, ld. Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 10th February, 2010, issued various directions to the following effect:

“17. For the time being, we are only taking a prima facie view without opining in any manner on the meritsoftherivalcontentionsortheclaimsmadeby either party. Balance of convenience, interests of justice and equity persuade us to pass certain directions. We are of the considered opinion that in case the writ petition ultimately fails, there can be no adequate monetary compensation for the loss of home to a person for all these years. On the other hand, appropriate orders for restitution can be passed, if the petitioner succeeds.

10. In view of the above position, having regard to the facts and circumstances aforesaid and in the interests of justice, we issue the following directions:-

(i) The respondent no.1 shall deposit an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in this court within a period of four weeks from today. This amount as and when depositedshallbekept inafixeddepositinitiallyfor a period of 13 months by the Registrar, to be kept renewed till final outcome of the writ petition;

(ii) Other than any requirement of further payment to the petitioner, the respondent no.1 shall complete all formalities which are required to be completed in terms of the Schedule 7 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 2007;

(iii) The counsel for the petitioner shall be duly informed of the said deposit and completion of formalities by the respondent no.l. The petitioner society shall inform the Registrar, of Cooperative Societies of the compliance of steps (i) and (ii) above within two weeks of the issuance of the intimation at (iii) above.

(iv)Subject to the completion or direc