Mohan Lal Kuba vs S.K. Mehra And Anr.
1991 Latest Caselaw 124 Del

JUDGMENT

B.N. Kirpal, J.

(1) Rule D.B.

(2) The prayer in this writ petition is that respondent No. 1 should clear the name of the petitioner for allotment of land.

(3) The petitioner became member of respondent No. 2, which is a Co-operative House Building Society. According to the petitioner, he had paid the entire dues of the respondent Society. Nevertheless, the Managing Committee on 7th October, 1977 sought to expel the petitioner from membership. It is alleged that this expulsion was approved by the Registrar, respondent No. 1, in 1978, though the factum of the same was not communicated to the petitioner till 1990.

(4) Being unaware of the approval, and as the Society was not receiving money from the petitioner, a reference of the disputes between the petitioner and the Society was made under Section 60 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act to an arbitrator. This reference was made by the Joint Registrar of respondent No. 1. On 11th March, 1986 the arbitrator gave his award in favor of the petitioner. The respondent No. 2, Society, went up in appeal but on 22nd July. 1987 the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. In the meantime, on 14th August 1986 full amount demanded by the respondent No. 2 Society and amounting to Rs. 32.840.40 was paid by the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 then wrote to respondent No. 1 for according clearance to the petitioner so that a plot measuring 160 sq. yds. in category 'D' could be allotted to him. It is thereupon that respondent No. 1 stated that clearance could not be granted because expulsion of the petitioner had been approved and against that expulsion only a revision under Rule 36 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules was maintainable and no proceedings under Section 60 for arbitration could be initiated.

(5) In our opinion, the action of the respondents in this connection is neither just nor valid. The petitioner was not informed of the approval by the respondents of his expulsion. It is the office of respondent No. 1 which referred the disputes to arbitration under Section 60. Thereafter, an appeal was also filed and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal in 1987. It is now too late in the day for respondent No. 1 to contend that the expulsion in 1977 had been upheld by respondent No. 1 in 1978 and therefore petitioner's name for allotment cannot be cleared.

(6) As already observed, the disputes between the Society and the petitioner got settled with the arbitration proceedings. If the expulsion by the Society itself was not valid, as held by the arbitrator and then by the Tribunal, the question of approval of expulsion continuing, cannot arise. The said approval became honest with the award of the arbitrator in favor of the petitioner. This being so, the respondent No. 1 is under an obligation and duty to clear the name of the petitioner for allotment of land.

(7) We therefore allow this writ petition and issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to consider petitioner's name for clearance in accordance with law Rule and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. The needful should be done within six weeks from today.

(8) The petition is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.

(9) A copy of this order be given dusty to counsel for respondent No. 1.