1. Petition challenging order rejecting membership transfer in cooperative society due to predecessor's non-approved membership. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 18638
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Dinesh Bhatt, JJ
Anil Sachdeva – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Cooperative Societies – Respondent
W.P.(C) 13976/2026 | CM APPL. 65240/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Hemant Gulati
For the Respondents: Shashi Pratap Singh
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Hemant Gulati
For the Respondents: Shashi Pratap Singh
A member cannot be penalized for the Society's failure to regularize a predecessor's membership; the appropriate remedy against such rejection is a revision petition under Section 116 of the DCS Act, 2003.
Headnote:(A) Cooperative Societies - Membership Approval - Regularization of predecessor's membership - A member should not be penalized for the failure of the Society's Managing Committee to follow proper procedure in regularizing the membership of a predecessor. (Para 13, 14)
(B) Procedural Remedy - Revision Petition - Where an order is not appealable, the appropriate remedy is to file a revision petition under Section 116 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. (Para 15, 17)
Issues: Whether the Petitioner can be denied membership due to the Society's failure to regularize the membership of the predecessor.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- cooperative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued he was a senior citizen with possession since 1989; RCS argued remedy lay via revision petition under Section 116. (Para 8 , 15 , 16 )
3. The Society's failure to follow proper procedure for predecessor's membership cannot be blamed on the Petitioner. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. An aggrieved party may file a revision petition under Section 116 of the DCS Act when an order is not appealable. (Para 15 )
5. Petition disposed of; Petitioner permitted to file a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner within one month. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
6. What is the remedy against an order that is not appealable under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act?
A revision petition lies under Section 116 of the DCS Act before the Financial Commissioner. (Para 15 )
7. Can a cooperative society member be penalized for the managing committee's procedural failings?
No, the court held that the petitioner cannot be blamed for the fault of the managing committee in failing to follow proper procedure. (Para 13 , 14 )
8. What factors should the Financial Commissioner consider when deciding a delayed membership revision petition?
The Commissioner should verify credentials, consider practical difficulties faced by the petitioner (a senior citizen), and decide within three months. (Para 17 )
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 65240/2026 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exemptions. Application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 13976/2026
3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the impugned order dated 8th January, 2024 passed by the Assistant Registrar, (Section -VII /H), Registrar of Cooperative Societies (hereinafter ‘RCS’).
4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that, despite all the documents being infavourofthePetitioner,andthePetitionerbeinginpossessionofFlatNo.C- 207 (hereinafter, ‘the flat’) in the Shiv Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited (hereinafter, ‘the Society’), since 1989, his membership has not been approved by RCS.
5. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the same was passed almosttwoandhalfyearsago,andthepresentwritpetitionisgrosslydelayed.
6. Moreover, the impugned order also notes that the Society had not properly obtained approval for the original members, i.e., in the Petitioner’s case, that of Mr. Sandeep Mehra. The reasoning given by the RCS in respect of the original members is set out below:
“[...]However, the membership of the original members was neither verified by this office nor forwarded to DDA as they were illegally inducted against the vacancies arising due to resignation/termination and due to sale of the flat by thethenManagementCommitteewerenotapprovedby the Office of the RCS since the procedure mentioned under Rule 19{2) of Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules 2007 was not followed. Similarly, in case of transfer of share to legal/nominee, the procedure mentioned under Rule 29 and 30 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules 2007 was not adopted. Further, the discrepancies observed during scrutiny were conveyed to the Administrator of the society vide this office letter dated 24.05.2023; in response to which, vide email dated 20.07.2023, the Administrator apprised that the members inducted in respect of membership numbers starting from 180 to 215 against the vacancies arising due to resignation/termination and due to sale of the flat by the then Management Committee were not approved by the Office of the RCS since the procedure mentioned under Rule 19(2) of Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules 2007 were not followed.Similarly,incaseoftransferofsharetolegal heir/nominee,theproceduresmentionedunder Rule 29 and30of Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules 2007 were not followed. xxx xxx xxx Hence, the provisions of Section 91 of the DCS Act 2003 are not applicable in the present case as said flats were never allotted to the predecessors of the respective petitioners. In the light of detailed facts and legal position mentioned above and in viewof circumstances of this case, the requests made by Smt. Malini Anand, Smt.Kamal Kapahi, Smt. Kavita Sankhla, Smt. Shashi Rani Aluwalia, Sh. Anil Sachdeva, Sh. Ram Dhan Sharma, Smt. Bimla Goyal Smt. Kiran Wadhwa,Smt.MadhuNagpalandDr.Atul Bhardwaj for transfer of membership in their names cannot be acceded to and the same is hereby rejected.”
7. In terms thereof, the RCS had observed that provisions of Section 91 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 (hereinafter, DCS Act, 2003) are not applicable as the flat was not allotted to the predecessors of the Petitioners therein. Accordingly, the transfer of membership was rejected.
8. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the Petitioner is a senior citizen, being over 79 years of age, and had also filed an earlier writ petition being W.P.(C) 15682/2023 titled ‘Anil Sachdeva v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Anr.’, wherein vide order dated 12th December, 2023 liberty was granted to him to approach this Court if the Administrator failed to take appropriate steps, the Petitioner has approached this Court.
9. The Court has considered the matter. The moot point in this case appears to be that, at the relevant point in t
