* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 17.10.2025

Pronounced on: 16.12.2025

+ W.P.(C) 4332/2021 & CM APPL. 13232/2021

RANJANA RAJAGOPALAN .....Petitioner

Through: Mr.D. N. Goburdhun, Sr. Adv.

with Mr.Hemant Phalpher,

Adv.

versus

LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr.Tushar Sannu, Standing

Counsel and Ms. Aqsa, Adv.

for GNCTD/R-1 & R-2

Mr.Aayush Agarwala, Mr.Prakash Jha and Ms.Mallina

Luthra, Advs. for R-3

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

J U D G M E N T

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. The present petition has been filed, praying for the following

reliefs:

“A] issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Directions to declare Rule 91, Form 17 of Delhi Cooperative Society Rule 2007, as manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19[1][c], 21, 300A of the Constitution of

India;

B] to declare, that Rule 91 Form 17, being Subordinate Legislation, is contrary to Section 78, 79, 80 of the present Act and is therefore ultravires of the Act and unconstitutional and

void/ nullity;

C] To declare that Petitioner’s case is covered under Section 74,78, 79 and 80 of the Act and Rule 93 applies along with Form 22 of the Delhi Cooperative Society Rules 2007 D] to set aside, and quash the order of Respondent No.3 passed on 26.12.20, Annexure-P5 herein and direct that nominee’s name given by the Respondent be accepted and that the Record of Respondent No.3 be rectified;

E] to declare Form 17, ultravires, unconstitutional to the extent of details of Blood relative in Form 17 is concerned and Form 17 be accepted Sans blood line clauses;

F] to issue writ, order, direction, directing that Petitioners case is covered under Rule 93 as Lands was allotted to Respondent No.3 on Perpetual Lease basis and deal with the procedure land down under the same is Form

21 & 22.

G] Writ, Order Direction, reading down Rule 91, that Rule 91 does not violate any Fundamental Right nor parent act provision are violated as under `Nomination’ head, a person or persons by within Section 2[g] blood relation are disjunctive and any person, can be nominated by the member of the society as they operate in different fields.

H] To issue writ, order, direction directing that Form 17 insertion of “blood line” is void/

struck off and to that extent Form 17 is void”

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is a single woman, having no children or any immediate blood relations but herself. Her father, who has since passed away, was an Advocate, and a member/Shareholder of the Supreme Court Bar Co-operative House Building Society Ltd./respondent no.3. The Society was allotted land to construct houses by the President of India, who is the lessor, on a permanent sub lease basis.

3. The petitioner‟s father was allotted Plot No. C-32, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi-110049 by the Society, wherein the respondent no.3 Society was the lessee and petitioner‟s father, a member of the respondent no.3 Society, was the sub lessee.

4. The father of the petitioner nominated her as a nominee in the „Share Certificate‟ of the Society. On her father‟s demise, the petitioner became a Member of the respondent no. 3 Society.

5. The petitioner, by a letter dated 13.03.2020, addressed to the Secretary of the respondent no.3 Society, had sought to nominate Ms. Gayatri Kumari and Master Pushkar Ram (both being siblings, but admittedly not in blood relation of the petitioner) as her nominees for membership/Share Certificate of the respondent no.3 Society. The same was, however, rejected by the respondent no. 3 vide Letter dated

26.12.2020, which reads as under:-

“As you are aware the Managing Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. in its meeting on 19.12.2020 considered your request for nomination of Ms.Gayatri Kumari & Master Pushkar Ram and the following resolution was passed:

“In view of the express provisions of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act Section 78 and Rule 91 of the DCS Rules, 2007 as well as our Bye Laws, Form 17 provided unde