The court upheld the necessity for fair adjudication regarding expelled members' appeals and directed expedited handling of pending matters before the DCT.

Judgment :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioners’ case is that they were members of the Sri Durga Cooperative Group Housing Society (hereinafter ‘the Society’) and had paid substantial amounts towards the land and subsequent construction thereof. This payment of the amount, however, was disputed by the Society.

3. According to the Petitioners, several members of the Society, including the Petitioners had been expelled from the membership of the Society. There were a total of 35 members who were expelled by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (hereinafter, ‘RCS’) vide order dated 8^th May, 2015 in the following terms:

“· Further, the expulsion of the following members is hereby approved.

1. Sachin Gupta M.S. No 329, 2. Ramesh Chand M.S. No. 330; 3. Shipra Gupta M.S. No 332, 4. Shilpi Gupta M.S. No 336, 5. Nirmal Gupta M.S. No 344, 6. Praveen Gupta M.S. No 512,7. Mohit Gupta MS. No 474; 8. Abhinav Gupta M.S. No 475; 9. O.N. Sharma M.S. No 476, 10. Atul Mittal M.S. No 479, 11. Ram Kumar M.S. No 480, 12. Sushil Kr Arora: M.S. No.481, 13. Sweta Gupta M.S. No 483, 14. Ram Bahal M.S. No 484, 15. S.Rajesh.M.S. No 485, 16. N. Rajesh M.S. No 486, 17. Ram Gopal M.S. No 488, 18. Lal Babu Poddar M.S. No 490, 19. Nanku Ram M.S. No 489, 20. Manoj Gupta M.S. No 501, 21. Appar Khurana M.S. No 499, 22. Babita Gupta M.S. No 503, 23.Sharda Gupta M.S.No 502, 24. Abha M.S. No 507, 25. K.C. Jain M.S. No 504, 26. Anil Kumar M.S. No 509, 27. Ramesh Sharma M.S. No 506, 28. Rahul Khetarpal M.S. No 511, 29. Virender Kumar M.S. No 508, 30. Digvijay M.S. No 510, 31. M.K. Sharma M.S. 487, 32. Karan Singh M.S No.505.”

4. The said 35 members had appealed before the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal (hereinafter ‘DCT’), challenging the said expulsion. Before the DCT, there were some issues as to whether the said appeal shall be considered as one filed in representative capacity, or not.

5. Thereafter, the DCT, vide its order dated 22^nd July, 2015 treated the same as an appeal by one expelled member, namely, Mr. O.N. Sharma and passed an interim order on 22^nd July, 2015 in his favour in the following terms:

“xxx xxx xxx

They have been given a patient hearing. They submit that the society after passing of the impugned order, has started process of induction of new members. In case the society succeeds in enrolling new members, the purpose of filing this appeal would be frustrated.

The submissions have been considered. Sh. Gupta submits that let this appeal be treated to have been filed by Sh. O.N. Shama, A1, only.

For a moment, this appeal is treated to have been filed only by one expelled member ie. A-1, then in that case, there is justification to stay operation of the impugned order. Accordingly, the operation of the impugned order is stayed till the next date of hearing.”

6. Subsequent to the passing of the said order dated 22^nd July, 2015, an application was moved by the other Appellants, who had also been expelled. With respect to the said application, DCT took the position that the appeal filed by the expelled members against the order of RCS dated 8^th May, 2015 was entertained by the DCT as a common appeal on behalf of all the members, the interim order dated 22^nd July, 2015 was not extended to all the other members. The operative portion of the said order dated 12th June, 2018, passed by the DCT is set out below:

“10. From the above it is clear that where there are more plaintiffs or more defendants than one in a suit, and the decree appealed from proceeds on any ground co