Delhi High Court
Govt. Servants Cooperative Group ... vs Registrar Co-Op. Societies & Ors. on 16 April, 2009
Author: Siddharth Mridul
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 2583/2005
GOVT. SERVANTS COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY
LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikram Nandrajog, Adv.
versus
REGISTRAR CO-OP. SOCIETIES & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
% CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in YES
the Digest?
JUDGMENT
Siddharth Mridul, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner
challenging the order dated 4th January, 2005 whereby the Joint
Registrar of Co-operative Societies in exercise of powers vested under
Section 55 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 (in short
„Act‟) appointed an inquiry officer to look into the allegations made in
the representation made by certain members of the Petitioner-Society.
2. The short question that arises for consideration is when under
Section 55 of the said Act, the Registrar is competent to order an
inquiry and the circumstances under which such an enquiry can be so
directed.
3. Section 55 of the Act reads as under:
"(1) The Registrar may of his own motion or on the application of
majority of the committee or of not less than one third of the
members, hold an inquiry or direct some person authorized by
him by order in writing in this behalf to hold an inquiry into the
constitution, working and financial condition of a co-operative
society.
..............."
4. The submission made on behalf of learned counsel for the
Petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed by the
Registrar on the representation made by certain members of the
Petitioner-Society that do not number one third of the membership of
the society, whose total number of members is 1633. Learned counsel
for the Petitioner submits that only 18 members of the said Society
preferred the complaint to the Registrar.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the
impugned order also does not spell out that the inquiry has been
initiated suo moto. In fact the impugned order very clearly states that
the direction given in the impugned order is on the basis of the
complaint dated 22nd November, 2004 received from certain members
of the Society making certain allegations against the latter.
6. Counsel for the Petitioner has also invited our attention to the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent, wherein it has
been categorically stated that the impugned order was based on the
representation-complaint dated 22nd November, 2004 received from
certain members of the Petitioner-Society.
7. In view of the above, it is apparent that the Registrar has
directed an enquiry to be conducted into the Petitioner-Society based
on the complaint received from 18 members of the Petitioner-Society
and not on a complaint made by not less than one-third members of
the Petitioner-Society. It has also not ordered the enquiry to be
conducted under the suo moto powers under Section 55 of the Act.
8. Under the provisions of Section 55 of the Act the Registrar can
order an enquiry to be conducted only on the application of majority
of the committee or of not less than one third of the members of the
concerned Society. That is apparently not the case in the present
matter. Therefore, there existed no occasion or reason for the
Registrar to order the impugned enquiry based on the complaint of a
mere 18 members out of the total strength of 1633 members of the
said Society. In the consequence, we set aside the order dated 4th
January, 2005 and allow the present writ petition.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
MADAN B. LOKUR, J
APRIL 16, 2009
mk
