International Airports ... vs The Presiding Officer And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 1482 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

CM No. 10824/2007 (stay)

1. This application for interim relief has been filed with an application for restoration in a writ petition which prays for the following reliefs:

a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dt. 31.12.2002 and consequent Award dt. 07.11.2003 passed by the Respondent No. 2 as VOID AB INITIO and not valid; (Annexure P-1 & 2.)

b) issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Certiorari or any nature quashing the order dt. 02.12.2004 passed by the Respondent No. 1 as being illegal (Annexure P-5)....

2. With the consent of the learned Counsel, issue Rule DB while allowing the application for restoration, i.e., CM No. 9684/2005 and take up the writ petition for final hearing.

3. The main premise on which the writ petition is founded is that the petitioner by virtue of its membership of 2500 members is a class of society falling within Clause (f) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 58 of the Delhi Cooperative Society Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Rules) and, therefore, the disputes relating to elections of the petitioner society held on 20th August, 2002 ought to have been referred to the Lt. Governor. Since the dispute was referred to a nominee of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the petitioner has sought the intervention of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Before we take up the matter on merits, the facts of the case may be looked into so as to ascertain whether the respondents have conducted themselves so inequitably as to justify our interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. On 20th August, 2002, the elections to the new Managing Committee of the petitioner society were held. The result thereof was declared on 21st August, 2002, on which date the new Managing Committee was also constituted. On 20th September, 2002, upon receipt of complaints from some of the unsuccessful candidates, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies issued a show cause notice to the petitioner society. By an order dated 31st December, 2002, the petition challenging the election to the Managing Committee of the petitioner society was admitted under Section 60 of the Delhi Cooperative Society Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 1972 Act) and referred for arbitration under Section 61 of the said Act. On 7th November, 2003, the respondent No. 2 gave a finding that the elections to the Managing Committee of the petitioner society held on 20th August, 2002 were null and void. The said order was challenged in appeal by the petitioner society, the said appeal was dismissed by the respondent No. 1, Delhi Cooperative Tribunal on 18th March, 2004. The connected appeal bearing No. 314/2003 was also dismissed by the Presiding Officer, Delhi Cooperative Tribunal on 19th August, 2004, following the order dated 18th March, 2004. On 25th October, 2004, the petitioner filed a review petition under Section 79 of the Act challenging the order dated 19th August, 2004 passed by the respondent No. 1 as being without jurisdiction, as according to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 lacked jurisdiction for referring the dispute under Section 61 of the Act. The said review petition was dismissed by the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 2nd December, 2004, which in effect is the subject matter of the present writ petition.

6. The matter came up before the Division Bench of this Court for admission on 10th January, 2005, when the impugned order was stayed by the following order:

Notice to the respondents to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued, on filing of process fee and registered A/D covers, returnable on 25.5.2005.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Registrar Cooperative Societies has no power to order the impugned direction as the power vests with the Lt. Governor in case of any complaint against the irregularity in the election as per Section 31 read with Rule 58 of the Societies Act.

The impugned order is stayed till the next date of hearing.

dusty.

7. The petitioner has again repeated the plea raised before the Division Bench of this Court on 10th January, 2005. The petitioner's reasoning is based on Rule 58(1)(f) of the Rules read with Section 29(1)(b) of the 1972 Act. Rule 58(1)(f) of the 1973 Rules and Section 29(1)(b) of the 1972 Act read as follows:

Rule 58(1)(f) of 1973 Rules

58. Election of Committee

1. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules or the bye-laws and without prejudice to the generality of the powers of the Lt. Governor, in Sub-section (1) of Section 31, election of members of the committee of a class of society specified below shall be conducted in the manner given in Schedule II, namely:

(a) ...

(b) ...

(c) ...

(d) ...

(e) ...

(f) Any other society whose membership exceeds 2 (two) hundred.

Section 29(1)(b) of 1972 Act.

29. Annual general meeting. - (1) Every co-operative society shall, within a period of six months next after the date fixed for making-up its accounts for the year under the rules for the time being in force, call a general meeting of its members for the purpose of-

(a) ...

(b) election, if any, of the members of the committee other than nominated members subject to the provisions of Section 31;

8. Even if the petitioner's plea is accepted, the election to the Managing Committee of the petitioner society would be governed by Rule 58(1)(f) read with Schedule II of the 1973 Rules. The said Rules do not postulate the holding the election under the aegis of the Lt. Governor and accordingly, the plea of the petitioner is without any basis and the impugned orders do not merit any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

9. Apart from Rule 58, Section 31 of the Act would also not be applicable. Sub-section (7) of the said Section postulates that any dispute relating to the election of members of any committee of a cooperative society mentioned in Sub-section (1) shall be referred to the Lt. Governor, whose decision thereon shall be final. A bare glance at Sub-section (1) of Section 31 shows that the said sub-section refers to election of the members of the committees of such cooperative societies or class of cooperative societies as may be prescribed. Rule 58-A of the 1973 Rules contains the classification of cooperative societies for the purpose of Section 31 of the Act and indisputably the petitioner does not fall in the aforesaid distinct classes of the specified cooperative societies. Section 31 of the Act, therefore, is wholly inapplicable to the class of society to which the petitioner belongs see A.S. Gehlot and Ors. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors. 53 (1994) DLT 201.

10. The effect of the present wholly untenable proceedings instituted by the petitioner has been that the erstwhile Managing Committee which has been functioning since 2002, and a Committee which could have functioned only for a period of three years has managed to function for about five years by virtue of the interim orders. Thus it is evident that the petitioner's conduct has enabled it to prolong the litigation unjustifiably and consequently the tenure of the Managing Committee. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/- payable to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

11. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Secretary of the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee so as to recover the amount of costs from the petitioner. A copy of this order shall also be sent to the Registrar Cooperative Societies through courier forthwith so as to ensure that this order is given full effect, if necessary, by preponing the matter said to be fixed for 16th November, 2007.

12. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.