Delhi High Court
Sant Tulsi Dass Cooperative Group ... vs Surinder Kumar Aggarwal And ... on 9 July, 2009
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 09.07.2009
+ WP (C) 5275/1993
SANT TULSI DASS COOPERATIVE GROUP
HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ... Petitioner
- Versus -
NARINDER KUMAR AGGARWAL & OTHERS ... Respondent
WITH
+ WP(C) 5276/1993
SANT TULSI DASS COOPERATIVE GROUP
HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ... Petitioner
- Versus -
SURINDER KUMAR AGGARWAL AND OTHERS ... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:-
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondent No.1 : Mr Rakesh Munjal, Sr Advocate with
Mr Maneesh Goyal and Mr Ankur Arora
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR 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. These writ petitions pertain to the very same group housing
society, namely, Sant Tulsi Dass Co-operative Group Housing Society
Limited and raise the same issue, therefore, they are taken up together.
Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner society despite the matter
being on the regular board. It appears that the non-appearance of the
petitioner society is on account of the fact that the issue of domicile for
the relevant period is not a necessity in view of the circular dated
16.12.1992 which has been issued by the Registrar, Co-operative
Societies. The said circular reads as under:-
"No.F.47/OGH/Coop/92/5849 to 5900 Dated: 16.12.1992
CIRCULAR
It has been decided by the Govt. of National Capital
Territory of Delhi to discontinue the requirement of proof
of residence for membership of cooperative group housing
societies with immediate effect. The cases which have
been detained only on account of this reason may be
examined in the light of these orders. In future the
requirement of proof of residence in Delhi for clearance of
membership of cooperative group housing societies will not
be insisted upon.
A separate action is being taken to advice (sic:
advise) all the cooperative group housing societies to
amend the relevant bye-laws accordingly.
Sd/-
( S.M. CHAUDHARY)
Registrar, Coop. Societies"
2. Another circular was issued on 24.02.1994 clarifying the stand
already taken. The relevant portion of the circular dated 24.02.1994
reads as under:-
"... In the case of cooperative group housing societies,
decision was taken long back to dispense with the
requirement of proof of residence in Delhi. We have gone
further to delete this clause from the bye-laws of these
societies. We have already issued a notice to all the
cooperative group housing societies under Rule 16 of Delhi
Coop. Societies Rules, 1973, to amend their bye-laws by
deleting the clause of requirement of residence in Delhi for
the membership at the time of enrolment. In view of this,
whether a person is residing in Delhi or outside Delhi
becomes an irrelevant issue."
3. We may also note the decision of a Division Bench of this court
in the case of Maitri Nagar Co-operative Group Housing Society
Limited v. Mehar Chand and Others [WP(C) 2890/1995 decided on
17.04.2009], wherein the said circular dated 16.12.1992 came up for
consideration. With regard to the question as to whether the circular
would have retrospective effect, the Division Bench took the view that
the question of retrospectivity did not arise inasmuch as the circular
merely stated that those cases "detained" to enable a member of a
group housing society to provide proof of residence could now be
examined in the light of the Delhi Government's decision to
discontinue the necessity of proving residence in Delhi. The Division
Bench observed:-
"In other words, the circular would be applicable only to
those cases that had not yet attained finality."
4. In the present cases, we find that when the said circular dated
16.12.1992 came into operation, in both the writ petitions, the matter
was pending before the arbitrator and, therefore, it is obvious that the
case had not attained finality at that point of time. We may also note
that the award also mentions this circular dated 16.12.1992 and gives
the benefit to the respondent members. The tribunal has also dismissed
the appeals arising from the award as having been barred by limitation.
5. We have set out the circumstances to indicate the possible reason
as to why the petitioner has not appeared before this court. In any
event, the writ petitions are dismissed for non-prosecution.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
VEENA BIRBAL, J
July 09, 2009
dutt
