Vikas Co-Operative Group Housing ... vs The Registrar Of Co-Operative ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 5084 Del

             THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                          Judgment delivered on: 08.12.2009

+      WP (C) 12855/2009


VIKAS CO-OPERATIVE GROUP
HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED                                         ...   Petitioner


                                      - Versus -


THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES AND ANOTHER                                           ...   Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:-

For the Petitioner          : Mr R.K. Gupta
For the Respondent No.2     : Mr Anil Amrit with Mr Rohit Dhingra



CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. This writ petition has been filed by the Vikas Co-operative Group

Housing Society Limited against the order passed by the Financial

Commissioner in Case No.194/04-CA under Section 80 of the Delhi Co-

operative Societies Act, 1972 dated 25.01.2007. The said order dated

25.01.2007 was, in turn, passed in a revision petition filed under Section 80

of the said Act by the respondent No.2 herein, being aggrieved by the order

dated 31.05.2004 passed by the Respondent No.1 (Registrar of Co-operative

Societies).

2. The issue which was agitated before the Registrar of Co-operative

Societies as well as before the Financial Commissioner was with regard to

the cessation of membership of the respondent No.2 in the petitioner society

on the ground of violation of Rule 25(1)(c) of the Delhi Co-operative

Societies Rules, 1973.

3. We have heard the counsel for the parties. We are not inclined to

interfere with the impugned order dated 25.01.2007 because of two reasons.

The first and the foremost reason is that this petition has been filed belatedly

and there is no explanation other than the fact that the present Managing

Committee was elected on 15.06.2008 and that the previous committee had

failed to hand over the record of the society. We are not impressed with this

explanation for the delay in approaching this court. The change of a

Managing Committee consequent upon an election in a society does not

constitute a cause of action. It also does not enable the society to revive

matters which had attained finality. In the present case, we find that the

impugned order, which went in favour of the respondent No.2, had attained

finality under the Act on 25.01.2007 when the Financial Commissioner

passed the impugned order. In the course of the hearing, we were also

shown a letter dated 16.10.2007 issued by the petitioner society to the

Assistant Registrar (N/W) in the office of the Registrar of Co-operative

Societies, New Delhi with the request for clearance of membership of the

respondent No.2 for draw of lots for the purposes of allotment of a flat to the

respondent No.2. In the said letter, it is clearly acknowledged that the

membership of the respondent No.2 (Smt Asha Taneja) had been restored by

the Financial Commissioner and, therefore, she was entitled for allotment of

one HIG (High Income Group) category flat. The letter also records that

since the membership of Smt Asha Taneja had already been cleared during

verification of the list by the Registrar's office in the month of June, 2003

and the order of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to the contrary had

been set aside by the Financial Commissioner, her name was required to be

forwarded to the DDA for holding the draw of lots. This letter clearly

indicates that the petitioner society had also accepted the impugned order

dated 25.01.2007 and had acted thereupon.

4. Mr Gupta, who appears on behalf of the petitioner society, submitted

that the letter was sent by the previous Managing Committee and, therefore,

the same should not be given much credence. We are unable to agree and or

accept such a submission inasmuch as the change of the Managing

Committee does not alter the position with regard to the membership of a

person in the said society. There are no mala fides alleged against the

respondent No.2 and, therefore, such a plea cannot be accepted.

5. From the aforesaid circumstances, it is obvious that the petitioner

society had accepted the impugned order dated 25.01.2007 and had even

acted upon the same. In our view, the said order had attained finality and

cannot be disturbed after a period of two years. The present petition was

filed on 31.10.2009, when the order dated 25.01.2007 had attained finality

long back.

6. The second reason as to why we are not inclined to interfere with the

impugned order is that it has examined the matter on merits and has clearly

returned a finding that the membership and the allotment obtained by the

respondent No.2 in the petitioner society was not obtained benami, on behalf

of her husband. This conclusion has been arrived at in view of the fact that

all the documents produced by the respondent No.2 had gone unrebutted by

the respondent therein. The said documents provided uncontroverted proof

that the respondent No.2 had made contributions towards the society in her

own rights and through the amounts realized by her from her own resources.

She was a partner in a business which was being run in the name of M/s

Industrial Gifts (India). She had disclosed her income-tax returns and

statements of accounts of the said business to indicate the sources of

contribution towards the membership of the petitioner society. There is also

a finding that her husband Shri G.K. Taneja had acquired membership of

Dera Ismail Co-operative House Building Society Limited only through

succession and not on his own account. Consequently, the Financial

Commissioner held that the respondent No.2 did not incur any

disqualification as provided under Rule 25(1)(c) of the said Rules. We do

not find any infirmity in the said order nor is there any perversity in the

findings pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the

impugned order dated 25.01.2007 passed by the Financial Commissioner.

The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

VEENA BIRBAL, J DECEMBER 08, 2009 dutt