The court held that members of a cooperative society cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the regularization of self-draw memberships and directed the RCS to regularize clear cases while verifying legal heirship for transfer cases.

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Shivalik Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter ‘the Society’) seeking regularization of the self-draw/membership of 50 members of the Petitioner-Society.

3. It is the case of the Society that 38 members already stand verified by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (hereinafter ‘RCS’) and the RCSought to regularize the self-draw.

4. This court vide its order dated 10th September, 2026 had noted that similar matters have been considered by this court in the past wherein self- draw issues have been referred to the RCS. Therein, the decision of Hon’ble LG dated 20th September, 2011 was also considered by this Court in various decisions passed for regularisation of self-draws. Further it was noted that RCS had issued a Circular bearing No. F.No.47/RCS/Policy/155/P.F./2011/107-113 dated 4th June, 2026 (hereinafter ‘Circular’), for recognition of flats which were allotted through self-draw.

5. On the last date Mr Singh, ld. Counsel for the RCS submitted that he would like to seek instructions in the present matter.

6. Today, the RCS has placed on record a short affidavit which has been deposed by Mr. Sanjay Jha, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. As per the said affidavit, the status report of the 50 members of the Society is as under:

“4. That the Petitioner, The Shivalik Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd., has a freeze strength of 50 members, with 50 dwelling units. The flats were allotted to the members through a self-draw conducted by the Society in the year 1986, in violation of Rule 77 of the then Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973, and without the involvement of the Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies ("RCS") or the Delhi Development Authority. The membership of the members of the Society has not yet been finally verified by this office so as to enable further processing of the regularisation of their memberships and of the flats allotted to them.

5.That the proposal for regularisation of the membershipofthe50memberswasmootedbytheoffice of the RCS in October 2018. As per the records, there are 20 cases of transfer of membership on account of the death of the original members. To process the matter further, the Society was asked to submit the documents relating to these transfers of membership as required under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 and the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 2007. Tothiseffect,thisofficeissuedaletterdated30.10.2019 calling for the details of the Managing Committee resolutionsby which the memberships weretransferred, together with the documents relied upon for approval of such transfers, duly certified by the President/Secretary of the Society. In response, the Society, vide its letter dated 14.11.2019, sent the details of 25 cases (20 old cases and 5 additional cases up to that date).

6. That on perusal of these transfer documents, it was observed that the requisite documents, namely the transfer affidavit (Form 'C'), share certificate, nomination forms, succession certificate and NOC from the legal heirs, had not been sent by the Society along with its letter dated 14.11.2019.

7.That in order toprocess the cases of regularisation of membership, this office addressed letters dated 23.12.2019, 09.03.2020 and 29.10.2021 to the President/Secretary of the Society, calling for the documents mentioned in paragraph 6 above. The Society's letter dated 06.01.2020,sent in response to the letter dated 23.12.2019, did not furnish the requisite information, as recorded in the reminder dated 09.03.2020. No such documents have been provided by the Society to the office of the RCS till date.

xxx

9. That as regards the reliance placed by the Petitioner on the noting of the then Assistant Registrar that 38 out of the 50 members were found eligible, it is submitted that the proposal was only mooted by the then Assistant Registr