Shyam Lal vs State And Ors
2009 Latest Caselaw 5302 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                                      Judgment delivered on: 18.12.2009


+      W.P.(C) 13952/2009


SHYAM LAL                                                      ..... Petitioner


                           -versus-


STATE AND ORS                                                 ..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. G.S. Singh, Advocate

For the Respondent : Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani with Ms. Bandana Shukla, Adv. for respondent Nos 1 & 2.

CORAM:-

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

1. Whether the 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. The petitioner has challenged the validity of Section 40(3) of the

Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 which contains a deeming provision

that in case the resolution for expulsion of a member, passed by the

managing committee of the society, is not considered by the Registrar and

no order is passed within a period of 180 days, then there would be a

deemed approval of expulsion of the member. The plea taken by the

petitioner is that this provision is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of

the Constitution as also the principles of natural justice inasmuch as merely

because of the inaction on the part of the Registrar, the petitioner would

suffer expulsion inasmuch as there would be deemed approval of the

resolution passed by the managing committee if no decision is taken by the

Registrar within 180 days.

2. However, we find that in the present case, the deeming provision of

Section 40(3) is not in question at all, inasmuch as there is an order passed

by the Registrar on 12.10.2009 whereby the approval of the expulsion of the

petitioner has been granted. It is not a case of a deemed approval but of an

order passed by the Registrar under Section 40 of the said Act.

3. However, on going through the impugned order, we find that there is

no discussion with regard to the objections preferred by the petitioner and

there are no reasons given as to why the expulsion was approved by the

Registrar. The only reference to the objections preferred by the petitioner

was that the petitioner had not been given a reasonable opportunity to

represent himself in the matter before the managing committee. However,

the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the said

submission, there were other submissions also on merits as to why the

proposal for expulsion of the petitioner ought not to have been approved by

the Registrar. None of these objections have been considered by the

Registrar.

4. We feel that the impugned order is virtually a non-speaking order and,

therefore, the same ought to be set aside and the matter be remanded to the

Registrar for a decision afresh giving reasons with regard to each of the

objections raised by the petitioner.

5. We are aware that Section 40(4) provides a remedy of appeal to any

party aggrieved by the order of the Registrar passed under Section 40 of the

Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. However, since the Delhi

Cooperative Tribunal is not functional at the present moment, we have taken

this step of setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the

Registrar for a fresh hearing and for passing an order giving reasons for the

same inasmuch as the said remedy of appeal, in the present circumstances, is

not an equally efficacious remedy.

6. The Registrar shall issue notice to the parties to appear before him,

prior to proceeding with the matter.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

Dasti.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

VEENA BIRBAL, J DECEMBER 18, 2009 srb