$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13201/2024 & CM APPL. 55130/2024, CM APPL.

58298/2024 VINEET BHARDWAJ .....Petitioner Through: Ms.RashmiJainandMr.AkhilKumar Beriwal, Advs.

versus REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETY & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No. 1/RCS Mr. Gagan Kumar, Ms. Puja Jakhar, Ms. Raghwi Rawat, Advocates for R-

2.

Ms. Puja Jhakar, Adv for the Society.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

O R D E R

% 23.02.2026

1. This hearing has been done through virtual mode.

CM APPL. 55130/2024 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

CM APPL. 58298/2024 (for condonation of delay)

3. The present application has been filed by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 2 days in re-filing the petition.

4. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing is condoned.

5. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 13201/2024

6. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the decision dated 27th October, 2023 passed by the Respondent No.1 - Registrar of Co-operative Societies (hereinafter, ‘RCS’).

7. Vide the ‘Minutes of Meeting’ of the Committee constituted under Rule 90 (hereinafter, ‘Rule 90 Committee’) of the Delhi Co-operative Society Rules,2007(hereinafter,‘DCSrules’)decisiondated27thOctober,2023was taken, whereby Petitioner’s request for allotment of flat was rejected on the ground that Rule 19(2) of the DCS rules had been violated by the Respondent No.2- Gulshan E-Iqbal Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited (hereinafter, ‘the Society’).

8. After some hearing, it is clear that there is one flat which is vacant in Society.

9. The objection raised by the RCS was that in the draw of lots, the representative of the RCS was not present and hence the decision was taken bytheRule-90CommitteethattheRule19(2)oftheDCSrulesstoodviolated. 10. ThePetitionerisstatedtohavepaidtheamountofapproximatelyRs.25 lakhs way back in 2013, for the flat in the Society.

11. Thereafter, an award dated 6th March, 2017 in Arb. Case No. 95/GH/DR/ARB/2013-14 has been passed by the ld. Arbitrator in favour of the Petitioner, whereby the Petitioner was directed to be given the flat in the Society. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

“(i) The then President of Respondent Society had been taken course of action of filling up one vacacy of society left out only after authorised by the Managing Committeeinitsmeetingon 11.5.2013.ThePresidentof the Respondant Society was present at the time of draw and shown the resolution declaring him fully authorised by the Managing Committee in the MC meeting on 11.5.2013sothedrawislegalandlegitimateandhewas responsible to manage the representative of the RCS, in his absence the draw could have not been declared. The advertisement was cancelled by the RCS communicated on 26.8.2013 which in violation of Rule 19(2) of DCS Rules, after the draw, acceptance of money from the claimant. The act of the President is in gross violation of the provisions contained in the DCS Act and Rules.

(ii). The Respondant Society neither communicated to the Claimant in respect of cancellation of his claim to be a member of the society nor refunded the money deposited with, the Respondant Society which is against the provisions of the DCS Act and Rules. Even, the claimant was not given opportunity of personal hearing by the society before cancellation of his claim.

(iii) As per provision under clause 12(a) of bye laws of the Respondent Society, the claimant has paid the share amount. Subsequently, as per provision under clause 12 (b) the share certificate issued in favour of the claimant. The Respondant Society has failed to give the possession of flat against the membership allotted/share certificate issued to the claimant after depositing of all money Rs. 25,68,610/-

as demanded by the Respondent Society.

(iv) The