U.P. Samaj Co-Operative Group ... vs Delhi Cooperative Tribunal And ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 1076 Del

JUDGMENT

Khan, J.

1. Petitioner is disputing membership of R-3 and calling in question orders passed by the Registrar and the Cooperative Tribunal respectively affirming his membership.

2. Both sides are giving their own versions. The petitioner society asserts that R-3 was not a member as he had not filed any application for membership in terms of Rule 24 and as his membership was not approved by any Society resolution. It is, however, admitted that he was on the waiting list. R-3 on the contrary claims that he had submitted requisite application along with a cheque of Rs. 110/- dated 14.9.1983 which was duly credited to the society's account on 29.1.1983 and where after he was enrolled as a member and had received communications from the society including notices of General Body Meeting till 1986 when his membership was sought to be disputed. He also refers to and relies upon society's letter dated 21.3.1987 whereby he was told that he had defaulted in making a payment of Rs. 25,000/- for allotment of 125 sq.yds. plot to which he replied on 22.5.1987 and pursuant whereto he deposited the requisite amount on 10.6.1987 which was received and acknowledged by the society. He says that he thereafter repeatedly approached the society for allotment of plot and after no action was taken, he filed a claim petition before Registrar raising disputes regarding continuance of his membership, his seniority and his entitlement to allotment of a plot culminating in order dated 24.7.1995 whereby these were referred for adjudication. The society took appeal against this which was dismissed by order dated 10.11.1995.

3. The society's case amongst other things is that Registrar had denied it opportunity to show that R-3 was not a member of the society as he had not filed the requisite application and as his membership was not approved by any Society resolution. It's counsel Mr. Rustogi argued that though R-3's claim petition was not maintainable at all as he had not become the member, yet Registrar had wrongly held it so. He had also fallen in error in holding the claim petition within time when it was clearly time barred.

4. It appears to us that Society's case proceeds on a serious misconception on both counts. Because R-3's claim petition was not confined to his membership status. He had raised three disputes, on the other hand, one of which related to continuation of his membership. Therefore, once Registrar had felt satisfied on the basis of material that R-3 had validly became the member, he was justified to hold his petition maintainable. It is not that he had returned any perverse finding in this regard but had considered all aspects including crucial circumstances like society's action to allot membership to R-3, its acceptance of his first cheque and then Rs. 25,000/- from R-3 and its over-all conduct of treating him as a member. It is on this all that Registrar had concluded that R-3 was a member of the society and that his claim petition was maintainable. We find no scope to interference in this.

5. The same holds true on the question of limitation. In our view, the Registrar had rightly dealt with the issue and found the claim petition of R-3 with in time which was later affirmed by the Tribunal. We are also not impressed by the submission that society was denied any opportunity of providing that R-3 was not a member. In fact, all opportunity was available to it to prove its cards in which it failed. Therefore, all told we find no merit in this petition which is dismissed. However, anything said or held in this order shall not influence any pending proceedings before any forum between the parties.