Inder Sain Sharma & Ors. vs Registrar, Delhi Co-Operative ...
2000 Latest Caselaw 257 Del

ORDER

Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, dated 26.8.1997 as also the order dated 7.11.1997 passed by the Appellate Authority, namely, the Financial Commissioner, Delhi.

2. The petitioners were members of respondent No. 3/Society. The Society vide its General Body Meeting held on 6.7.1996 and 27.7.1996 passed a Resolution expelling 35 members including the petitioners herein for nonpayment of the instalment which was required to be paid in terms of the demand of the Society. The aforesaid order of expulsion was sent to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies for confirmation on the basis of which the Registrar, Cooperative Societies initiated proceedings on which notices were issued to the petitioners as well. During the proceedings before the Registrar, it was contended on behalf of the Society that all the 35 members including the petitioners were expelled for non-payments of the first installment of cost of land demanded by the Delhi Development Authority and, therefore, their expulsion was justified. It was also contended that charging of interest of flat rate of 18% was also justified as also the demand of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation. It was contended on behalf of the said 35 members that expulsion is against the Rules and that the Society had levied interest at a higher side, that is at 18% in violation of the directions issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. It was also contended that the demand of Rs. 25,000/- was also uncalled for.

3. The Registrar considered the records and the contentions raised on behalf of the expelled members as also on behalf of the Society and thereafter proceeded to render his decision as follows;

"1. As regards interest rate 18% the society has already conceded vide its letter dated 22.8.97 that the rate of interest @ 18% will be divided in two parts i.e., 18% and 12%. The amount paid to the DDA by the society will attract interest @ 18% and the amount due from the defaulting members @ 12% . The society has already adjusted the interest and calculated the same from the due date of payment of installments.

2. As regards, the amount of Rs. 25,000/-, I find that this was harged from the members who were enrolled provisionally and who ad to pay provisionally and who had to pay substantial interest. hey redeemed the society from amount of Rs. 4,57,632/- as interest. Had the society not made the payment within the time allowed by the DDA,DDA would have forfeited 10% cost of land. It would have cost monetary loss as well as mental shock to the members who have paid the cost of land. In my opinion, therefore, this amount is reasonable and should be paid by each defaulter member.

3. As regard Rs. 90,000/- raised as final installment by the society, this cannot be acceded to at this juncture because it is an amount raised subsequent to expulsion proceedings of which no notice had been sent to the defaulter members. For this amount, the society has to give opportunity to the defaulter members. Since the defaulter members have now come to know, they have made this payment. They are directed to pay the same along with other dues. However, society has conceded that no interest will be charged on this amount.

On the basis of the above observations and directions each defaulter member is directed to pay Rs. 3,327,554/- (principal amount with interest and Rs. 90,000/-) and Rs. 25,000/-. The total amount comes to Rs. 3,62,554/-.

The plea of the defaulter members that they should be given reasonable time to make payment as most of them have to apply for the loan from various institutions, I am inclined to give them one month's time from the date of announcement of this order to make the payment either in cash or by demand draft failing which, they will stand expelled from the society.

4. It is thus apparent that the Registrar granted the petitioners an opportunity to make payment of the amount indicated therein within a time bound programme but making it clear that if the payment is not made within the aforesaid period, the members would stand expelled from the Society. Instead of availing of the said opportunity, the petitioner filed appeals before the Financial Commissioner. All the aforesaid 12 appeals filed by the petitioners were entertained by the Financial Commissioner and by a common order passed on 7.11.1997 dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners herein and confirmed the order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. While disposing of the said appeals, the Financial Commissioner held that the Registrar gave full opportunity to all the petitioners herein but only 7 of the petitioners were regularly present before the Registrar who were heard. It was also held by the Financial Commissioner that upon hear-

ing the petitioners herein the Registrar gave them extra time of one month to make full payments, but full payments were not made by the petitioners to the Society and accordingly held that their expulsion had been rightly ordered by the Registrar. The Financial Commissioner also found that Shri Vipin Kumar Gupta appeared twice before the Registrar, Cooprative Societies but thereafter deliberately absented himself from the proceedings and his expulsion order was also rightly ordered by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies whereas, the petitioners likes Mrs. Chandra Kanta Anand, Mrs. Sandhaya Bhargava, Mr. Satish Chander Sharma and Mrs. Aparna Roy had already taken back the refund of their deposits with the Society and, therefore, their expulsions have also rightly been ordered by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, through the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition was preferred on which I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. As indicated in the order dated 7.11.1997 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Mrs. Chandra Kanta Anand, Mrs. Sandhaya Bhargava, Mr. Satish Chander Sharma and Mrs. Aparna Roy have already taken back the refund of their deposits with the Society and, therefore, the present petition so far they are concerned is not maintainable as they had already taken back refund of their deposits with the Society. Shri Vipin Kumar Gupta absented himself from the proceedings after appearing twice only and, therefore, he was proceeded ex parte. It is, however, to be indicated that the cases of the petitioners were examined and the Registrar, Cooperative Societies gave all the petitioners including all the aforesaid seven persons one month extra time to make full payment but, in spite of the said opportunity full payments were not made by them to the Society.

6. It is needless to mention that the construction of the flats by the Society is dependent on receipt of the instalments from the members for the Society has no other fund but, to rely entirely upon payment of the installments by its members for whose interest and benefit construction of flats are made by the Society.

7. The amount was also not deposited before the Financial Commissioner during the pendency of the aforesaid appeals before him and even till date, not to spread of the entire amount but, not even a part of it has been paid by any of the petitioners. Opportunity was provided to the petitioners to make full payments and they were given one month extra time to make the said payments but still, the said opportunity was not availed of and, therefore, it is apparent that there was no intention on the part of the petitioners to pay the installments as demanded by the Society although other members similarly situated have already made payments. It is also contended by counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 that new members have already been inducted in place of the petitioners who have made payments and, therefore, there is no possibility of the petitioners being inducted as members for there is no vacancy.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the petitioners are themselves to be blamed for the actions taken against them, no relief could be granted in favour of the petitioners in the present Writ Petition. I find no merit in this petition and the petition stands dismissed.