1. Challenge to order rejecting transfer of cooperative housing society membership — Delay and procedural non-compliance with Rules. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 20402
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Dinesh Bhatt, JJ
Madhu Nagpal – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Cooperative Societies – Respondent
W.P.(C) 14257/2026 | CM APPL. 66708/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V K Gulati, Hemant Gulati
For the Respondents: Shashi Pratap Singh, Anamika Tyagi, Laqshyaa Saluja
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V K Gulati, Hemant Gulati
For the Respondents: Shashi Pratap Singh, Anamika Tyagi, Laqshyaa Saluja
A member cannot be penalized for the procedural failures of a Society's Managing Committee in regularizing a predecessor's membership; the appropriate remedy for challenging such a rejection is a revision petition under Section 116 of the DCS Act.
Headnote:(A) Cooperative Societies - Membership Transfer - Fault of Managing Committee - A member should not be penalized for the failure of the Society's Managing Committee to follow proper procedures for regularizing the membership of a predecessor. (Para 13, 14)
(B) Procedural Remedy - Revision Petition - Where an order is not appealable, a revision petition under Section 116 of the DCS Act is the appropriate remedy to challenge the rejection of membership. (Para 15, 16)
Issues: Whether the Petitioner can be denied membership due to the failure of the Society's Managing Committee to regularize the membership of the predecessor.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- cooperative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner: senior citizen, in possession since 2011, earlier liberty granted. Respondent: order not appealable, revision lies under Section 116, DCS Act. (Para 8 , 15 )
3. Petitioner cannot be blamed for Society's failure to regularize predecessor's membership; each case requires individual consideration. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Where an order is not appealable, a revision petition lies under Section 116 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003. (Para 15 )
5. Petitioner granted liberty to file revision petition before Financial Commissioner within one month; delay condoned; decision within three months. (Para 16 , 18 , 19 )
6. What is the remedy when an order under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act is not appealable?
A revision petition lies under Section 116 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 before the Financial Commissioner. (Para 15 )
7. Can a subsequent purchaser be held responsible for the Society's procedural default in regularizing membership?
No, the purchaser cannot be blamed for the Managing Committee's failure to follow proper procedure, and deserves individual consideration. (Para 13 , 14 )
8. What relief is available to a senior citizen petitioner delayed in challenging a cooperative society membership rejection?
The court may condone delay and direct the petitioner to a revision petition with a direction for expedited decision within three months. (Para 16 , 18 )
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 66708/2026 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exemptions. Application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 14257/2026
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 in favour of the Petitioner, and the Petitioner being in possession of Flat No. A-209 (hereinafter, ‘the flat’) in the Shiv Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited (hereinafter, ‘the Society’), since 2011, her 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 Ms. Dolly Arora @Ms. Dolly Sapra. 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 66 years of age, and had also filed an earlier writ petition being W.P.(C)15806/2023 titled ‘MadhuNagpalv.RCS’, wherein vide order dated 12th December, 2023 liberty was granted to her to approach this Court if the Administrator failed to take appropriate steps, hence, 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 time, for
