The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of acting fairly and ensuring that rights are not affected without the grant of an opportunity, emphasizing the violation of principles of natural justice.

1. The petitioner was enrolled as a member of the Silverton Co-op. House Building Society Ltd. on December 15, 1987. He was allotted membership No. 345. The main object of the Society was to construct and manage residential accommodation for its members. The Society applied for the allotment of land to the Chandigarh Administration. When the needful was not done, it filed C.W.P. No. 1454 of 1992. The petition was admitted vide order dated May, 11. 1992. Certain interim directions were also given. It was inter alia directed that the petitioner shall deposit 10% of the tentative price within the time permitted by the Court.

2. In pursuance to the interim directions given by the Court the Society called upon the eligible members including the petitioner to make the deposit. The petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 12,200/- The Draft submitted by the petitioner to the Society was forwarded to the Estate Officer, Union Territory Chandigarh. Subsequently, the petitioner was, informed that this Draft had been returned by the Estate Officer with the direction that the deposit be made with the Chandigarh Housing Board.

3. After the lapse of about seven years the Housing Board called upon the Society to deposit 25% of the earnest money towards the cost of the land. A copy of this letter has been produced on the record as Annexure P-9. A perusal of this letter shows that the deposit had to be made along with the affidavits and other documents

"in respect of the members screened up to 31-10-90 by the Registrar Co-operative Society, U. T. Chandigarh......within a period of two months........"

On receipt of this letter. the Society asked the petitioner to deposit the money and to complete the other formalities. It is alleged that he got the Draft prepared. However, when he presumed the Draft and the documents to respondent No. 4, he was informed that his name did not figure in the list of eligible persons circulated by the department. On further enquiry the petitioner learnt that a screening had been conducted by a Screening Committee constituted by the Registrar. Co-operative Societies, Union Territory Chandigarh. His name had been removed from the list of eligible persons. Aggrieved by the action, the petitioner represented and sought to know the reasons for his exclusion. The reply was sent to him vide letter, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-15 with the writ petition. The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society, U. T. Chandigarh, informed the petitioner that the information could not be supplied to him. Hence this petition.

4 The petitioner alleges that he had been duly enrolled as a member. His name figures in the list of members of the Society. He had made the requisite deposit of 10% at the relevant time. Despite this and without the grant of any opportunity whatsoever, his name was deleted from the list. This was done under the garb of screening the members included in the list. No opportunity whatsoever having been granted to the petitioner, he claims that the action is violative of the principles of natural justice. Thus, it deserves to be quashed. The petitioner further prays that the respondents be directed to accept the requisite deposit so as to entitle him to the allotment of residential accomrhodation,

5. A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. T. Chandigarh. It has been pleaded by way of a preliminary objection that the petitioners name was excluded from the list of eligible members in the year 1991, Thus, the petition is highly belated. It has been further pointed out that while scrutinising the record of the Society he was found to be ineligible. Consequently, it was decided by the Committee to exclude his name. In the reply on merits the petitioners plea that there was non-compliance of the principles of natural justice has been controverted. It has been averred that "before making decision by the Screening Committee,