2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 16876
$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 12376/2024 & CM APPL. 51477/2024, CM APPL.
51478/2024, CM APPL. 51479/2024, CM APPL. 51480/2024 RESIDENTS DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE GROUP .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhinav S. Raghuvanshi, Ms.
Shweta and Ms. Rukhsar Ansari, Advocates.
versus REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Avni Singh, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing Counsel with Mr. Mandviraj Singh, Advocate for MCD.
Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi and Ms.
Harshita Maheshwari, Advocates for R-3/ DDA. CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ABHINAV SINGH RAGHUVANSHI
O R D E R
% 04.09.2024
1. The Petitioner, Residents Development & Welfare Group, a society representing the residents of DDA Site No.-I, New Rajendra Nagar, Central Delhi-110060,1 alleges that another Resident Welfare Association of the same locality -Respondent No. 2, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860,2 is colluding with local land mafias and certain government officials. This alleged collusion is purportedly facilitating illegal
1“locality”
W.P.(C)12376/2024 Page1of4 construction and encroachment on government land for the development of various buildings in the locality. It is additionally alleged that the office bearers of Respondent No. 2 are engaged in the mismanagement and misappropriation of funds collected from residents under the monthly maintenance charges, using them for purposes other than the welfare of the locality’s residents. In this regard, the Petitioner through letter dated 7th August, 2023 lodged a complaint with the Land Management Department of Delhi Development Authority3 (Respondent No.3), SHO, P.S Rajinder Nagar (Respondent No.5). Thereafter, the Petitioner also filed a complaint dated 23rd August, 2024 addressed to the Commissioner of Police, the Commissioner, MCD, highlighting their grievances.
2. Furthermore, it is alleged that Respondent No. 2 has amended the rules and regulations governing the election of the Management Committee, in a manner inconsistent with the society’s aims and objectives, and without prior notification to the Registrar of Societies (Respondent No. 1). In this regard, the Petitioner vide dated 26th December, 2022 lodged a complaint with the Registrar of Societies/Respondent No.1. However, no action was taken by the concerned authorities.
3. In this background, Petitioner seeks following prayers:
“(a) Pass appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, directing Respondent No.1 to cancel / withdraw registration of Respondent No. 2 / RWA in view of the fact that the Respondent No. 2 / RWA is running and functioning in complete breach of provisions of the Societies RegistrationAct,1860;and/or (b) Pass an appropriate order or direction to Respondent No. 3 / DDA, Respondent No. 4 / MCD & Respondent No. 5 / Delhi Police, to stopandcurb theillegal constructionandencroachment beingdone
2“SocietiesRegistrationAct”
3“DDA”
W.P.(C)12376/2024 Page2of4 in the said locality in complete contravention of MPD in terms of OfficeMemorandumdated23.05.2018;and/or (c) Pass an appropriate order or direction for immediate suspension of the Governing body of Respondent No. 2 / RWA and seize the power of its office bearers to discharge their duty as office bearers of Respondent No.2/ RWA;and/or (d) Issue necessary direction to Respondent No. 5/ Police to take appropriate action against the office bearers of Respondent No. 2 / RWA and against other such members of society who in active connivance with the private builders/ land mafia allowed the illegal construction in the said locality & encroached upon the public land and who have indulged into financial irregularities into the funds collected in name of maintenance charges from the residents;
and/or (e) Issue appropriate direction to Respondent No. 3 / DDA &
Respondent No. 4 / MCD, for taking action in accordance with the Office Memorandum Dated 25.04.2018 (Annexure-P/14) and Office Memorandum Dated 23.05.2018 (Annexure-P/15) as issued by the Min.of Housing& Urban Affairs;”
4. The aforenoted prayers (a) and (c) are aimed at Respondent No. 1 – the Registrar of Societies – requesting a direction to them to revoke the registration of Respondent No. 2 – the Resident Welfare Association, on the ground that it is not operating in accordance with the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. The Court finds that the Registrar of Societies lacks the jurisdiction to cancel/withdraw such registration.4 Consequently, this request falls outside the scope of the Act and is therefore deemed misconceived and denied. The Petitioner shall be free t