Delhi High Court
Ifuna Cooperative Group Housing ... vs Registrar Cooperative Societies ... on 16 July, 2002
Author: Khan
Bench: B Khan, J Kapoor
JUDGMENT
Khan, J.
1. Petitioner society enrolled as many as 25 members way back in 1987. Meanwhile a complaint was made to the Registrar Cooperative Societies alleging that it had enrolled some ineligible members who were not residents of Delhi. The Registrar sought its explanation and the society in turn his directions. The Registrar then required the society to cease membership of those who failed to furnish proof of their residence in Delhi vide communication dated 14.5.1990. All were asked to furnish proof but R 3-8 allegedly failed. Their membership was consequently ceased by the society vide resolution dated 31.5.1990 and some new members enrolled.
2. The society sent intimation of this to Registrar who did not convey any formal approval or otherwise of the action. Meanwhile private respondents 4 to 9 invoked Section 60 before Registrar to challenge their removal. While these proceedings were pending, Registrar took upon himself to launch proceedings under Section 8 of the DCSA to inquire into proof of residence of the removed members. The outcome of these proceedings is not however known. But his office later issued communication dated 5.9.1997 asking the society to clear the names of private respondents 4 to 9 as their cessation of membership had not been approved by the Registrar. The society challenged it before Financial Commissioner in revision which was dismissed by impugned order dated 29.1.1998. The society feels aggrieved by all this and challenges the action on the ground that Registrar's communication dated 5.9.1997 had not basis as he had failed to pass any order under Section 8 or Section 60. L/C for the petitioner Mr. Kalra pointed out that the explusion of these members was ordered at Registrar's instance for being non residents of Delhi and it did not require his subsequent approval and therefore Financial Commissioner had fallen in error to conclude that Registrar had not approved the removal of membership of R 3-8.
3. L/C for R 9-10 Mr. Tomar on the contrary sought to justify the action on the basis of official record.
4. We scanned through the record but could not come across any order passed by Registrar on Section 8 with any finding on proof of residence of these respondents. The official nothings refer to his order dated 3.5.1994 in this regard but it is not available in record. It is therefore to be presumed that Registrar had not passed any final order in the matter under Section 8.
5. That being so, the impugned communication dated 5.9.1997 could not be said be emanating from any such order and was therefore lacking in basis. The Financial Commissioner's conclusion that Registrar had not approved the removal of these members is also not borne by record.
6. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition by following order:-
"i) Impugned communication dated 5.9.1994 is set aside and so is the Financial Commissioner's order dated 29.1.1998.
ii) Registrar is directed to reexamine the record and ascertain if any proceedings under Section 8 was taken and was pending on the issue of disputed residence of R 3-8 or whether any order was passed in these. In case he had passed any final order in this regard, it shall be made available to society for appropriate remedy/action under law. If the proceedings are found pending these shall be concluded by passing appropriate order after hearing both the parties within two months from date of appearance of parties. Parties to appear before him on 29.7.2002."
dusty to both the parties.
