Love Pratap Soni vs Ksheer Sagar Cooperative Group ...
2000 Latest Caselaw 267 Del

ORDER

Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.

1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.4.1996 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Delhi dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 80 of Delhi Co-operative Societies Act as against the order dated 8.1.1996 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Delhi whereby she had approved the proposal of the respondent society under Rule 25(4) of the Rules framed under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act) for ceasing the membership of the petitioner from the said Society.

2. The petitioner was enrolled as a member of the respondent No. 1 society. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Rule 25 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules on 9.2.1993 directing him to show cause why his membership of the society be not ceased, as against which the petitioner filed his reply on 16.2.1993. The Managing Committee of respondent No. 1 vide its resolution dated 21.2.1993 ceased the membership of the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 25(1)(c)(ii) of Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules read with clause (8) (vii) of the registered Bye-Laws of the society. The aforesaid decision of the Society was communicated to the petitioner through a letter on 5.3.1993, on receipt of which the petitioner filed a dispute under Section 60 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act which was disposed of by the Joint Registrar by his order dated 13.2.1995 saying that a dispute does exist between the member and the society and accordingly ordered that the matter should be referred to an arbitrator under Section 61 of the Act. Simultaneously, the society, respondent No. 1 intimated the action taken against the petitioner to the Registrar and the said reference and treated to be a reference under sub-rule (4) of Rule 25. The Registrar clubbed both the cases and decided the same by his order dated 8.1.1996. Being aggrieved by the same a revision petition was filed before the Financial Commissioner which was disposed of by order dated 11.4.1996. Challenging the legality of both the orders this writ petition has been preferred on which I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the records.

3. Mr. Rohtagi, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Registrar as also the Financial Commissioner wrongly concluded that the petitioner had been carrying on real estate business dealing in the sale and purchase of houses or land, which has invited the disqualification under Rule 25(1)(c)(ii) of the Rules framed under the Act. According to the learned counsel the firm, of the petitioner undertook the work of renting agent only which would not come within the ambit of the disqualification as envisaged under aforesaid rule and therefore, the action taken is illegal and void. It was also submitted that for taking a decision under Rule 25 it was only the General Body which could take such a decision and in the instant case Managing Committee of the Society having taken a decision, the impugned action is Without Jurisdiction. The respondent No. 1, although is served, has not entered appearance and therefore, I have heard only the learned counsel appearing for the Registrar, Co-operative Societies.

4. Mr. Madan, appearing for the Registrar, during the course of his arguments drew my attention to the contents of the documents annexed as Annexure P-2 and relying on the contents thereof he submitted that it is an admitted position that the petitioner was running a real estate business in South Delhi and therefore, the action taken against the petitioner is in accordance with the provisions of Rule 25(1)(c)(11) of the Rules. He submitted that the action has been taken in accordance with the provisions of Rule 25(4) which is final and binding on all the parties and therefore, there could be no grievance of the petitioner.

5. The same pleas as was argued before me were also raised before the Revisional Authority namely - the Financial Commissioner, Delhi. On consideration of the said pleas as also the record, he found that the seal of the firm of the petitioner indicates that he is a property dealer. He also held that the petitioner was unable to give any documentary proof to substantiate his averments that he was not a property dealer but was only a Renting Agent. In those circumstances he found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Registrar.

6. The letter annexed as Annexure P-2 at page 28 of the Paper Book was admittedly written by the petitioner to the Registrar, Co-operative Group Housing Society, contending inter alia that he was running a real estate business in South Delhi and that his firm was Rana Pratap & Co. which is a egistered firm. The contents of the said document however, were attempted to be explained later on by projecting himself only as a renting agent i.e. arranging accommodation on rent. From the contents of paragraph 5 of the writ petition it is crystal clear that the petitioner gave the aforesaid undertaking in terms of the request of respondent No. 1. The explanation sought to be given by the petitioner to the aforesaid expression by contending that he was only a renting agent and nothing beyond, was also argued extensively before the Registrar and the Registrar by a well reasoned order negatived the aforesaid explanation sought to be given by the petitioner and on consideration of other documentary evidence on record held that the petitioner incurred the disqualification mentioned in Rule 25(1)(c)(ii) and held that the action of the society ceasing the membership of the petitioner was legal and valid.

7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a person could be disqualified from membership only if it is proved that he deals in purchase or sale of immovable properties either as a principal or its agent in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. He submitted that since the petitioner carries out the activities only or renting, the petitioner does not come within the purview of the aforesaid disqualification.

8. It appears from the records that in his declaration given to the Registrar, he had stated in categorical terms that he is running a real estate business in South Delhi by the name of Rana Pratap & Co. A real estate agent does deal with purchase and sale of immovable properties. The dictionary meaning of the word 'real estate agent' was also considered by the Registrar and taking consideration of the said dictionary meaning it was held by him that it would include all kinds of activities like leasing, renting, buying, selling of properties as wel as working as an agent, buyer and sellers as also a renting agent.

9. No documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the petitioner to prove that his firm was carrying on only the activities of renting and not any other activities. The Registrar has also referred to a stamp of the company of the petitioner which indicates the name of Rana Pratap & Co., Estate Agents, which indicates that the petitioner is not only working as estate agent for renting purposes but also as property dealers for other purposes like selling, purchasing of properties etc. The aforesaid conclusions arrived at by the Registrar as also by the Revisional Authority are conclusions of facts which cannot be interfered with in the present writ petition.

10. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 25 also lays down that the aforesaid decision of the Registrar is final and binding. The revision preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner sought to submit that the aforesaid declaration was obtained by the Society under mis-representation. The aforesaid plea was also found to be without any merit by the Registrar as also by the Financial Commissioner. The Society in their reply before the Registrar has stated that the aforesaid letter written by him which is annexed as Annexure P-2 was given by him on 4.1.1993 and was received in the Society on 5.1.1993. The aforesaid plea raised by the counsel for the petitioner at the arguments stage that the letter was given under misrepresentation, cannot be accepted.

11. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that action could not have been taken under Rule 25 for procedure for expulsion of members is laid down under Rule 36, and the said procedure laid down therein should have been followed. He submitted that the action taken against the petitioner is in violation of the aforesaid procedure laid down for expulsion of a member from the Society as laid down under Rule 36. On a careful reading of the said provision it would be apparent that the said provision applies only when action are sought to be taken for expulsion of a member. But here is a case where the petitioner incurred a disqualification as envisaged within the ambit of the provisions of Rule 25 and therefore, the provisions of Rule 36 have no relevance and/or bearing on the facts and circumstances of the present case. Counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that the action, if any, should have been taken by the Governing Body of the Society and not by the Managing Committee as was done in the instant case. In this connection reference may be made to sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 wich provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the rules or the Bye-Law of the Co-operative Society if a member becomes, or has already become, subject to any disqualifications specified in sub-rule (1), he shall be deem to have ceased to be a member from the date when the disqualifications were incurred. It is also necessary, in this connection to refer to the provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 25 which provides that if any question as to whether a member has incurred any of the disqualifications referred to in sub-rule (1) arises, it shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and that his decision would be final and binding on all concerned.

12. Since in the present case a decision has been rendered by the Registrar in respect of the disqualification of the petitioner in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 25, on reference of the said issue to him, his decision which is challenged in this case is the decision which is operating and binding. Besides, if the petitioner had incurred the disqualification by operation of the deeming provision he is deemed to have ceased to be a member from the date when the disqualifications were incurred. Thus, whether the initial decision was taken by the Managing Committee or the Govern-

ing Body was immaterial. It is now the decision of the Registrar which is relevant and material who upon consideration of the records has held that the petitioner had in fact incurred the disqualification within the meaning of sub-rule (1) of Rule 25 and therefore, the present petition revolves around the decision of the Registrar as also of the Financial Commissioner on revision. The said decisions rendered by the Registrar and the Revisional authority are found to be valid and legal.

13. In that view of the matter there is no merit in this writ petition and the same accordingly, stands dismissed.