Shri Mahavir Singh vs Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 542 Del

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

                   Writ Petition (Civil) No. 608/2010

                         Date of decision: 1st February, 2010


SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH                    ..... Petitioner
                         Through Mr. S.S. Lingwal, Adv.

                   versus


GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.              ..... Respondent

Through Mr. Vinod Wadhwa, Adv. For R-1, 2 & 4

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?No

GITA MITTAL, J(Oral)

1. This writ petition has been filed contending that the petitioner has filed

an appeal assailing an award dated 25th March, 2009 passed under section

71 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 against the petitioner. The

petitioner submits that the statutory remedy was invoked by way of the

appeal before the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal filed on or about the 15 th April,

2009 being Appeal No. 128/2009. However, for the reason that the Tribunal

is not in place, the application seeking interim relief filed by the petitioner

has not been considered. The -2-

petitioner prays for grant of interim relief by way of the present writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 contends that the

respondent no. 1 is at an advance stage of finalization of the constitution of

the Tribunal and reasonably expect the same to be in place on or before 31st

March, 2010. The record laid before us shows that the petitioner became a

member of the respondent no. 3 Cooperative Group Housing Society in the

year 1988 on payment of a sum of Rs.110/-. It is an admitted position before

us that the petitioner has not paid a single penny towards allotment of any

flats which the respondent no. 2 was to construct. The petitioner also admits

that construction of the flats has been completed. It, therefore, cannot be

contended that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that construction

was underway.

2. An oral submission is made that the petitioner was approaching the

respondent no. 3 for information with regard to payments, if any, which he is

required to make. However, not a single communication has been placed

before us as having been ever sent to the respondent no. 3 in this behalf.

3. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner woke up only after the

Central Bureau of Investigation started investigation into the management of

the respondent no.3 on account of the intervention of this court which was

looking into the functioning of cooperative

societies. The petitioner has placed before us copies of summons dated 9th

October, 2006 and 11th October, 2007 received by him under section 160 of

the CrPC from the Central Bureau of Investigation. No steps at all were taken by the petitioner even then to assert his legal rights, if any.

4. The petitioner has placed reliance on a response dated 28th February,

2008 received by him from the Delhi Development Authority to the effect

that the records of the society are with the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Certainly the prayer for interim relief cannot be premised on such a

communication.

5. A dispute was raised by the petitioner under section 70 of the Delhi

Cooperative Societies Act which was assigned by the Registrar of

Cooperative Societies for consideration by an arbitrator. The arbitrator has

passed an award dated 25th March, 2009 observing that as per the record

made available to him, the petitioner's name is in the list of members who

have resigned on their own.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this finding is

without any basis and that the society did not even file a reply before the

award. This aspect of the matter as well as production of records, if any, is

an aspect which the Appellate Tribunal would be required to go into.

In view of the above, having regard to the delay in invoking the

- 4 -

remedy, if at all by the petitioner, we are not inclined to exercise our

discretion to pass any interim relief in the present writ petition in the above

facts.

This writ petition and application are accordingly dismissed.

We make it clear that nothing herein contained shall be considered is an opinion on the merits of the case. The view we have taken is only for the

purposes of the interim relief which was pressed before this court on the

ground that the petitioner's interim application was not being heard.

Dasti

GITA MITTAL,J

VIPIN SANGHI, J FEBRUARY 01, 2010 kr