Delhi High Court
Sanjay Gupta & Ors. vs Registrar Cooperative Societies ... on 3 August, 2010
Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ 3rd August, 2010
% 1. W.P.(C) No.1581/03 (Lead matter)
SANJAY GUPTA & ORS.
...... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Y.P. Narula, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Anuruddha Choudhury,
Advocate.
Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate
with Ms. Latika Choudhary,
Advocate.
VERSUS
REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES & ORS.
....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Rajiv K. Garg,
Mr. Ashish Garg, Advocate and
Ms. Seema, Advocate.
Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate for
the respondent No.1.
Ms. Kanchan Singh, Advocate for
the respondent/applicant.
Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for Mr.
R.P. Gupta, Advocate for the
respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
2. W.P.(C) No.291/03
K. RADHAKRISHNAN & ANR. .......Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Geeta Kovilan,
Advocate.
Mr. P.R. Kovilan Poongkuntran,
Advocate.
VERSUS
THE REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES PARLIAMENT STREET &
ORS.
........Respondents.
Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Rajiv K. Garg,
Mr. Ashish Garg, Advocate and .
Ms. Seema, Advocate.
Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate for
the respondent No.1.
Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for
respondent No.3.
Mr. S. Janani, Advocate with Mr.
Deepak Goel.
Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for Mr.
R.P. Gupta, Advocate for the
respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
3. W.P.(C) No.293/03
BAL MUKUND DUBEY ...... Petitioner.
Through: Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Geeta
Kovilan, Advocate.
Mr. P.R. Kovilan Poongkuntran,
Advocate.
VERSUS
THE REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES PARLIAMENT STREET &
ORS.
....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Rajiv K. Garg,
Mr. Ashish Garg, Advocate and
Ms. Seema, Advocate.
Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for Mr.
R.P. Gupta, Advocate for the
respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
4. W.P.(C) No.302/03
S. RAMANATHAN & ANR. .......Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Geeta Kovilan,
Advocate.
Mr. P.R. Kovilan Poongkuntran,
Advocate.
VERSUS
THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES & OTHERS
.....Respondents.
Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Rajiv K. Garg,
Mr. Ashish Garg, Advocate and
Ms. Seema, Advocate.
Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate for
the respondent No.1.
Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for Mr.
R.P. Gupta, Advocate for the
respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
5. W.P.(C) No.1584/03
RAJESH MALHOTRA .....Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person with Mr. Y.P.
Narula, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Aniruddha Choudhury,
Advocate.
VERSUS
THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES & OTHERS.
.....Respondents.
Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Rajiv K. Garg,
Mr. Ashish Garg, Advocate and
Ms. Seema, Advocate.
Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate for
the respondent No.1.
Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for Mr.
R.P. Gupta, Advocate for the
respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
6. W.P.(C) No.1586/03
BINDU MEHTA & ANR. ......Petitioner
Through: Ms. Bindu Mehta, petitioner in
person with Mr. Y.P. Narula,
Senior Advocate with Mr.
Aniruddha Choudhury, Advocate.
VERSUS
THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVT. OF NCT OF
DELHI AND ORS.
.......Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Rajiv K. Garg,
Mr. Ashish Garg, Advocate and
Ms. Seema, Advocate.
Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate for
the respondent No.1.
Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for Mr.
R.P. Gupta, Advocate for the
respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
7. W.P.(C) No.1615/03
ADITYA KUMAR AGARWAL .......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Kumar Agarwal,
petitioner in person with Mr. Y.P.
Narula, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Aniruddha Choudhury,
Advocate.
VERSUS
THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES & ORS.
.......Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Rajiv K. Garg,
Mr. Ashish Garg, Advocate and
Ms. Seema, Advocate.
Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for Mr.
R.P. Gupta, Advocate for the
respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
8. W.P.(C) No.4442/03
SYED KHALID HUSSAIN .......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sayed Khalid Hussain,
petitioner in person with Mr. Y.P.
Narula, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Aniruddha Choudhury,
Advocate.
VERSUS
THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES & Ors........Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Rajiv K. Garg,
Mr. Ashish Garg, Advocate and
Ms. Seema, Advocate.
Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for Mr.
R.P. Gupta, Advocate for the
respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
9. W.P.(C) No.8389/05
SUDHANSHU BAHADUR .......Petitioner
Through:
VERSUS
MOUNT EVEREST COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. &
ORS.
......Respondents.
Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Rajiv K. Garg,
Mr. Ashish Garg, Advocate and
Ms. Seema, Advocate.
Mr. S.K. Bangia, Administrator.
Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for Mr.
R.P. Gupta, Advocate for the
respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
10. W.P.(C) No.10723/05
JASBIR SINGH WASU .......Petitioner
Through:
VERSUS
THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVT. OF NCT OF
DELHI & ORS.
........Respondents.
Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Rajiv K. Garg,
Mr. Ashish Garg, Advocate and
Ms. Seema, Advocate.
Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for Mr.
R.P. Gupta, Advocate for the
respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
11. W.P.(C) No.12671/05
PARVINDER PAL SINGH WASU .......Petitioner
Through:
VERSUS
THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVT. OF NCT OF
DELHI & ORS.
........Respondents.
Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Rajiv K. Garg,
Mr. Ashish Garg, Advocate and
Ms. Seema, Advocate.
Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate for
the respondent No.1.
Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for Mr.
R.P. Gupta, Advocate for the
respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
12. W.P.(C) No.12696/05
BHAWNA SINGH .......Petitioner
Through:
VERSUS
MOUNT EVEREST COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.
........Respondent
Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Rajiv K. Garg,
Mr. Ashish Garg, Advocate and
Ms. Seema, Advocate.
Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for Mr.
R.P. Gupta, Advocate for the
respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
13. W.P.(C) No.390/06
LOKESH CHANDRA GUPTA & ANR. .......Petitioners
Through: Mr. Y.P. Narula, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Anuruddha Choudhury,
Advocate.
VERSUS
THE REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES & ORS. .......Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Rajiv K. Garg,
Mr. Ashish Garg, Advocate and
Ms. Seema, Advocate.
Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for
the respondent No.3.
Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for Mr.
R.P. Gupta, Advocate for the
respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
14. W.P.(C) No.392/06
MS. YASMIN RAZA .......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Yasmin Raza petitioner in
person with Mr. Y.P. Narula,
Senior Advocate with Mr.
Aniruddha Choudhury, Advocate.
VERSUS
THE REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES & ORS. ........Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Rajiv K. Garg,
Mr. Ashish Garg, Advocate and
Ms. Seema, Advocate.
Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for Mr.
R.P. Gupta, Advocate for the
respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
15. W.P.(C) No.6540/07
SURABHI DUTT & ORS. .......Petitioners
Through:
VERSUS
THE REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY
& OTHERS
.......Respondents
Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Rajiv K. Garg,
Mr. Ashish Garg, Advocate and
Ms. Seema, Advocate.
Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate
with Ms. Bandana Shukla,
Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for Mr.
R.P. Gupta, Advocate for the
respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
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 the Digest?
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J (ORAL)
1. The Mount Everest Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited
has a chequered history with large number of inter se litigations between
members, members and society, inquiries into the financial affairs and
allegations of money being siphoned off. There are stated to be proceedings
pending in respect of various aspects but in so far as these writ petitions
are concerned, the controversy is limited to the allotment of flats to
members.
2. We may note that there were 120 members and 120 flats were
constructed, but, in respect of 40 flats, two flats each have been conjointed
making them into 20 four bed room flats instead of the original 40 two bed
room flats each. The result is that there are 40 two bed room flats, 40 three
bed room flats and 20 flats of 4 bed rooms (which have been made by
conjoining of the two bed room flats each).
3. There has been subsequent scrutiny of membership by the
Administrator, objections to the reports of the Administrator,
reconsideration by the Administrator and the final report of the
Administrator was placed before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies as per
directions issued by this Court to facilitate scrutiny. The result of all the
scrutiny is that there is now a final list of 132 members. We may note that
it is alleged that there are four other members who have however either
partly or wholly taken back refund and have not been found to be eligible to
be included in the list nor is any litigation initiated by them pending. The
result of this is that it is these 132 members who have to be allotted flats.
4. The allotment took place of all the flats but in view of the
allegations and counter allegations, 10 four bed room flats are lying sealed
under order of this Court. There are also 12 other members who have paid
their full amount and have yet not been allotted flats. We have thus two
groups of members who are not in physical occupation of the flats, first
consisting of 12 members who have not been allotted flats and the second
consisting of 20 members who have been allotted the 10 four bed room flats.
We may also note that out of the first group of 12 members, 10 have paid
moneys towards two bed room flats while two have paid moneys for three
bed room flats.
5. It is in these circumstances that the learned senior counsel for
the parties assisted by the Advocates on record, the other counsels and the
parties sought to work out an amicable solution so that the members are
not continuously deprived of their flats. More than nine years have elapsed
since the allotment of the flats was made and thus naturally the members
without flats are troubled by this prolonged litigation.
6. A workable solution has been found feasible in view of the
permissible constructed area to be increased as a consequence of MPD
2021, and the existing unutilized FAR. One J.M.D. Construction Company
has given a proposal for carrying out the further construction to facilitate
creation of additional flats to meet the needs of the members. The
important aspect is that the number of flats to be constructed would be
more than the number of members for whom no flat exists which would
result in some spare flats some for the society and the remaining flats will
be with the builder to compensate him for the cost of construction and
profits. This would facilitate no additional financial outflow by the existing
members.
7. The parties agree that these writ petitions be disposed of with
the following directions:
(i) It is accepted that there are finally 132 members of the society
who have been cleared by the Registrar who alone are entitled to a flat.
There are four other members who were cleared but who have either taken
back their money either in full or in part and hence not entitled to a flat.
(ii) The 10 four bed room flats allotted in favour of the second
group of members, mentioned aforesaid, would vest with such members but
the possession would be deferred to a date and the seal opened to facilitate
simultaneous handing over possession of those 10 flats to members
alongwith the flats to be newly constructed to be handed over to the
remaining 12 members without any allotted flats at present though they
have paid the full money.
(iii) The builder will construct 26 flats. These flats will consist of 24
two bed room flats and two 3 bed room flats. A separate tower will be
created of 20 two bed room flats which will have the same area as the
existing two bed room flats and which will have the parking facility similar
to other flats.
(iv) The 12 members belonging to the first group, as noticed above,
consist of 10 members who have paid for two bed room flats each while two
members have paid for three bed room flats each. The two members who
have paid for three bed room flats each are Ms. Bindu Mehta and Mr.
Sayeed Khalid Hussain. The 10 claimants to the two bed room flats will be
accommodated in the new tower to be constructed, being 10 out of the 20
flats to be constructed in that tower. Out of the remaining 10 flats, 6 flats
will go to the members nominated by the builder which is his consideration
for cost of construction, other expenses and profits. The remaining four
flats will vest with the society. The builder will also construct 4 two bed
room flats and 2 three bed room flats on the existing towers. The 2 three
bed room flats on the existing tower will go to the aforesaid two members
while the 4 two bed room flats will go to the builder on terms aforesaid. The
builder will thus get 10 two bed room flats in this manner.
(v) The four spare flats vesting with the society in the new tower
will be on the ground floor and the immediate floors above. Out of these
four flats, one flat will be reserved to meet any future financial liability as
there are certain claims pending against the society. The remaining three
flats will be utilized for common facilities for the members at large of the
society. In case, no claim is held sustainable finally against the society, the
fourth flat will also become available for such common facility.
(vi) The Registrar will increase the sanctioned membership strength
of the society as there are now 132 members plus 10 flats to vest in the
members nominated by the builder. Thus, the membership should be
increased to 142 out of which 10 members will be nominated by the builder.
(vii) The builder will complete the construction within a period of 18
months plus four months grace period as proposed by him. In case, the
proposal with the existing builder does not work out for any reason, the
Administrator will ensure that a similar proposal is worked out with the new
builder. Whichever builder undertakes the project, will file an undertaking
to this Court to comply with the directions of the agreed terms noted in this
order.
(viii) The Administrator, who is present in the Court, will execute all
the necessary documents to carry out the intent of this order.
(ix) The builder will have to submit the fresh plans to the DDA
though we may note that earlier permission had been granted for 11 more
flats on 23.9.1999 which were not constructed. The DDA will carry out the
necessary exercise within one month of the submission of the plans filed by
the society. Such a decision will be taken by the DDA on the relevant
documents being submitted by the builder within 30 days of the agreement
being entered into with the society through Administrator. The other local
authorities are also similarly expected to cooperate to put an end to this
prolonged dispute by giving sanctions/approvals at the earliest.
8. We issue directions to all the parties to comply with the
aforesaid terms which form part of our order. We make it clear that this
brings to an end to all the disputes relating to the right of allotment of flats
to members.
9. We express our appreciation for the assistance rendered by the
learned counsels to bring this dispute to an end as also for the approach of
the parties in finding an amicable solution.
10. The writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid
directions.
11. In order to monitor the progress and for issuance of directions,
in case of difficulty, the lead matter being writ petition No.1581/03 will be
listed for directions on 29th September, 2010.
C.M. Nos.363/03, 12796/04 &14306/04 in W.P.(C) No.291/03, C.M.
Nos. 365/03, 12793/04 and 14303/04 in W.P.(C) No.293/03, C.M.
No.377/03, 8099/04, 12185/04, 14307/04 and 9800/06 in W.P.(C)
No.302/03, C.M. Nos.2591/03, 11456/03, 14637/04, 14640-41/04,
1797/05, 2372-2373/05, 15397-15398/05, 15642-15643/05, 13406-
13408/06, 13411/06, 12740/07, 17528/07, 6628/08 and 6310/09 in
W.P.(C) No.1581/03, C.M. No.2601/03 in W.P.(C) No.1584/03, C.M.
No.2605/03 in W.P.(C) No.1586/03, C.M. No.2666/03 in W.P.(C)
No.1615/03, C.M. Nos.7590/03 & 6697/07 in W.P.(C) No.4442/03, C.M.
No.6187/05 in W.P.(C) No.8389/05, C.M. Nos.296-297/06 in W.P.(C)
No.390/06 and C.M. Nos.298-299/06 in W.P.(C) No.392/06
In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, all applications
stand disposed of.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
AUGUST 03, 2010
Ne
