Delhi High Court
Kamlesh Grover vs Jheel Khranja Extn. Coop. G/H ... on 13 August, 2002
Author: Khan
Bench: B Khan, J Kapoor
JUDGMENT
Khan, J.
1. All these petitions are identical in nature and
raise similar issues and are being disposed of by this
common order.
2. Petitioners claim to have purchased flats from
original members (Private Respondents in all cases) of
R-1 society way back in 1992 through power of attorney.
Meanwhile a demand was raised by the society against the
original members which they failed to satisfy.
Subsequently, expulsion proceedings were taken against
them which were later approved by Registrar vide his
order dated 1.6.1999. Petitioners filed a revision
against this order but Financial Commissioner dismissed
their petitions by order dated 16.9.1999 on the ground
that they had no locus to challenge expulsion of
original members.
3. Petitioners challenge this order praying that
respondent society be directed to transfer membership
rights to them. Their case is that they had deposited
the requisite fee for transfer of membership which was
accepted by R-1 and yet they were being harassed and
money extorted from them from time to time. They also
invoke Rule 24 of the relevant Rules to claim their
entitlement to transfer/substitution of membership.
They also meekly indicate that they were prepared to
clear any outstanding dues.
4. As it is, no fault can be found with the orders
passed by Registrar expelling the defaulting original
members (private respondent in all these petitions) or
for that matter with orders passed by the Financial
Commissioner. It can't be said or held that original
members were unjustifiably expelled or that Financial
Commissioner had fallen in error in holding that
petitioners had no locus in the matter. The action of
expulsion is a matter between the society committee and
Registrar on the one hand and the expelled member on the
other. It is only the expelled member who could feel
aggrieved of his expulsion and none else, not even a
proxy or attorney holder. It is not anybody's case that
expelled original members had made any grievance in the
matter. They had enjoyed the fruits of membership, made
a buck out of it and allowed third party interests to
intervene. It may be true that petitioners are bonafide
purchasers but they could not step in the shoes of
original expelled members unless they are granted
membership rights on transfer which is subject to
satisfying some requirements under relevant Rules and
which could include clearance of outstanding dues of
original members also. We accordingly find no infirmity
in the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner on
this parity of reasoning.
5. Petitioners' best bet could be to approach the
society and to seek consideration of their request for
transfer of membership on fulfillment of prescribed
requirements and it was for R1-2 to consider their case
and take appropriate decision in the matter.
6. The President of R-1 has produced before us the
details of the outstanding amount due against the
original expelled members. He even offered that in case
petitioners could clear the dues excluding demurrage
charges and 50% of the legal expenses, their case for
transfer of membership would be considered. But even
this offer was not acceptable to petitioners leaving us
with no option but to decline the prayed for relief to
them and to dismiss their petitions. It shall still be
open to petitioners to approach the Managing Committee
of R-1 and to clear the dues outstanding against
original members less demurrage and 50% of legal
expenses incurred by the society and to seek
consideration of transfer of membership to them. In
that event, R1-2 shall consider their request and pass
appropriate orders thereon.
