THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 07.07.2009
+ W.P(C) 304/1989
SH P. L. GUPTA & ANR ..... Petitioners
- Versus -
THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE
SOCIETIES & ORS. ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:-For the Petitioners : Mr Rakesh Munjal, Sr Advocate with
Mr Sumant De
For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr V. K. Tandon
For the Respondent No. 2 : Ms Priya Kumar
For the Respondents 3,4,6 & 7 : Mr V. K. Rao
For the Respondents 5, 8 & 9 : Mr Rakesh Tiku
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition has been filed by persons who were employees of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). The issue relates to the membership and allotment of plot in respect of the CSIR Employees Cooperative House Building Society Limited (respondent No. 2).
WP(C) 304/1989 Page No. 1 of 6
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the Registrar's order dated 19.01.1988 which reads as under:-
"I have carefully gone through the contents of the various complaints and considered the explanation put forth by them today at the time of hearing. The case of S/Sh. V. M. Bucher & K. N. Johri are very clear to the extent that they took over the possession of DDA flat after their membership with the society was transferred in favour of their respective sons. Therefore, at no stage they were in possession of a property including the DDA flats before transferring the membership. As such I am quite clear in my mind that they had not incurred any disqualification on this account. Regarding the case of Sh. N. Sen it is only a technical requirement which has not been completed due to matters lying pending in this department as well as the society. Otherwise the intentions of Sh. Sen have been very clear from the fact that he also did inform the society well in time about the registration and also acquisition of the DDA flat. The transfer of membership in his case too was much before he took over the possession of the DDA flat. Therefore, had he completed the required formalities in time he would have also not attracted disqualification. To put the things straight, it is now directed that Sh. Sen shall complete all legal and procedural requirements for the transfer within 30 days from the date of issue of this order. The society shall give him the list of such documents to be furnished by him immediately so that the needful is done within the time limit prescribed. In case, Sh. Sen does not abide by this decision within 30 days from the date of this order the transfer in question shall be deemed as invalid.
The parties before me have been informed.
Sd/-
(G. P. SEWALIA) REGISTRAR 19.01.1988"
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners had initially filed an appeal before the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal. The same was numbered as case No. 29/1988. However, that appeal was dismissed WP(C) 304/1989 Page No. 2 of 6 by an order dated 25.11.1988 by the said Tribunal on the ground that it was not maintainable under Section 76 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972. Left with no other alternative, the petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging the said order dated 19.01.1988.
4. The main point urged by the petitioners is that the transfer of membership by the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in favour of their children being respondents 6-9 was invalid. It is an admitted position that respondent No. 3 sought the transfer of his membership to the respondent No. 6 (son); respondent No. 4 sought the transfer of his membership to respondent No.7 (son); and respondent No. 5 sought the transfer in favour of respondents 8 and 9 (sons).
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the bye-laws of the CSIR Employees Cooperative House Building Society Limited (respondent No.2). Bye-law 5 (i)(a) reads as under:-
"A person is eligible to become a member of the society provided he is a CSIR employee, New Delhi"
Bye-law 8(viii) reads as under:-
"A member or the nominee or successor of an ex-member may transfer his shares to another member or applicant qualified under bye-law (5) and approved by the committee or to a share transfer fund."WP(C) 304/1989 Page No. 3 of 6
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said bye-laws read together permitted the transfer of a membership under two situations. The first situation was where the transferor and the transferee were members of the society. The second situation was where the transferor was a member of the society and the transferee, who was the applicant, was otherwise qualified under bye-law 5(i)(a) of the said bye-laws, which, in effect, meant that the transferee had to be a CSIR employee. The learned counsel submitted in the transfers sought by respondents 3, 4 and 5 in favour of their sons, it is apparent that none of the proposed transferees were CSIR employees at any point of time. It is, therefore, submitted by him that the said transfers could not have been approved by the society or by any other authority in contravention of the bye-laws. This aspect of the matter was not considered by the Registrar when he passed the impugned order dated 19.01.1988 and, therefore, he seeks the setting aside of the said order.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3-9 submitted that subsequent to the framing of the said bye-laws, the Lieutenant Governor issued instructions on 27.05.1979 whereby guidelines have been issued for substitution / addition of family members. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, transfers to family members have been permitted. Therefore, according to the WP(C) 304/1989 Page No. 4 of 6 learned counsel for the respondents no fault can be found with the impugned order in not considering this aspect of the matter.
7. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we note that the Lieutenant Governor does have powers to issue such instructions as were issued on 27.05.1979. We also note that the guidelines contained in paragraph B(v)(c) also requires consideration. This aspect of the matter was not at all considered by the Registrar when he passed the order dated 19.01.1988. It is for this reason that we are of the view that the impugned order dated 19.01.1988 be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Registrar to consider the issues afresh after taking into consideration the bye-laws of the society as well as the Lieutenant Governor's instructions issued on 27.05.1979. Apart from this, the Registrar shall also consider any other objections that may be taken by the parties including the question of disqualification under Rule 25 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 society also mentioned that the DDA has, in the meanwhile, by a letter dated 06.01.2005 informed the society that the flats which were allotted to the respondents have been cancelled on the dates indicated in the said letter. The Registrar shall also take note of this fact before he takes a decision in the matter.
WP(C) 304/1989 Page No. 5 of 6
9. The counsel for the parties submit that since it is an old matter, some direction with regard to time be given. Consequently, we direct that the Registrar shall give his final decision within three months. We make it clear once again that the parties would be entitled to place any material that they would like the Registrar to examine before he passes the order. In the first instance, the parties shall appear before the Registrar on 13.07.2009 at 3 pm. This writ petition stands disposed of.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VEENA BIRBAL, J JULY 07, 2009 SR WP(C) 304/1989 Page No. 6 of 6