THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 09.07.2009
+ WP (C) 5275/1993
SANT TULSI DASS COOPERATIVE GROUP
HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ... Petitioner
- Versus -
NARINDER KUMAR AGGARWAL & OTHERS ... Respondent
WITH + WP(C) 5276/1993 SANT TULSI DASS COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ... Petitioner
- Versus -
SURINDER KUMAR AGGARWAL AND OTHERS ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:-
For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent No.1 : Mr Rakesh Munjal, Sr Advocate with Mr Maneesh Goyal and Mr Ankur Arora CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR 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) WP(C) 5275/93&5276/93 Page No. 1 of 4
1. These writ petitions pertain to the very same group housing society, namely, Sant Tulsi Dass Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited and raise the same issue, therefore, they are taken up together. Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner society despite the matter being on the regular board. It appears that the non-appearance of the petitioner society is on account of the fact that the issue of domicile for the relevant period is not a necessity in view of the circular dated 16.12.1992 which has been issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The said circular reads as under:-
"No.F.47/OGH/Coop/92/5849 to 5900 Dated: 16.12.1992 CIRCULAR It has been decided by the Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi to discontinue the requirement of proof of residence for membership of cooperative group housing societies with immediate effect. The cases which have been detained only on account of this reason may be examined in the light of these orders. In future the requirement of proof of residence in Delhi for clearance of membership of cooperative group housing societies will not be insisted upon.
A separate action is being taken to advice (sic: advise) all the cooperative group housing societies to amend the relevant bye-laws accordingly.
Sd/-
( S.M. CHAUDHARY) Registrar, Coop. Societies"
2. Another circular was issued on 24.02.1994 clarifying the stand already taken. The relevant portion of the circular dated 24.02.1994 reads as under:-
"... In the case of cooperative group housing societies, WP(C) 5275/93&5276/93 Page No. 2 of 4 decision was taken long back to dispense with the requirement of proof of residence in Delhi. We have gone further to delete this clause from the bye-laws of these societies. We have already issued a notice to all the cooperative group housing societies under Rule 16 of Delhi Coop. Societies Rules, 1973, to amend their bye-laws by deleting the clause of requirement of residence in Delhi for the membership at the time of enrolment. In view of this, whether a person is residing in Delhi or outside Delhi becomes an irrelevant issue."
3. We may also note the decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Maitri Nagar Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited v. Mehar Chand and Others [WP(C) 2890/1995 decided on 17.04.2009], wherein the said circular dated 16.12.1992 came up for consideration. With regard to the question as to whether the circular would have retrospective effect, the Division Bench took the view that the question of retrospectivity did not arise inasmuch as the circular merely stated that those cases "detained" to enable a member of a group housing society to provide proof of residence could now be examined in the light of the Delhi Government's decision to discontinue the necessity of proving residence in Delhi. The Division Bench observed:-
"In other words, the circular would be applicable only to those cases that had not yet attained finality."
4. In the present cases, we find that when the said circular dated 16.12.1992 came into operation, in both the writ petitions, the matter was pending before the arbitrator and, therefore, it is obvious that the WP(C) 5275/93&5276/93 Page No. 3 of 4 case had not attained finality at that point of time. We may also note that the award also mentions this circular dated 16.12.1992 and gives the benefit to the respondent members. The tribunal has also dismissed the appeals arising from the award as having been barred by limitation.
5. We have set out the circumstances to indicate the possible reason as to why the petitioner has not appeared before this court. In any event, the writ petitions are dismissed for non-prosecution.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VEENA BIRBAL, J July 09, 2009 dutt WP(C) 5275/93&5276/93 Page No. 4 of 4