Delhi High Court
M/S Bhrigu Apartments Resident ... vs Registrar Of Cooperative ... on 9 July, 2010
Author: A.K.Sikri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
REVIEW PETITION NO. 334/2009
&
CM 10772-73/2009 IN WP (C) 9424/2009
Judgment delivered on: July 09,2010.
M/S BHRIGU APARTMENTS RESIDENT . . . PETITIONER
WELFARE ASSOCIATION
THROUGH: Mr. S.N. Jha, Advocate for the
petitioner.
VERSUS
REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE
SOCIETIES & ORS. . . .RESPONDENTS
THROUGH: Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for
Respondent No. 5 & 6.
Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Advocate for
respondent No.1/RCS with Shri A.C.
Verma, RCS
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers 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?
A.K. SIKRI, J.(ORAL)
1. In the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, the grievance of the
petitioner was that the respondent no. 4 to 6 i.e. Smt. Raj Pathak, Smt. Rita Bhargava,
Sh.K.K. Bhargava and some other members were admitted as members of the respondent
no.2 fraudulently as they already owned some property in Delhi. The petitioner had filed
application under Rule 25 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. The grievance
was that the Registrar was not taking any action. On this premise, prayers were made to
direct the Registrar to conduct an inquiry and cancel the membership of aforesaid
persons. On 8th May, 2009 when this writ petition came up for hearing, nobody appeared
on behalf of the petitioners. Counsel who appeared on behalf of the Registrar of
Cooperative Societies/R-1 made a statement at the Bar that on the basis of report
received, Registrar had issued show-cause notices to respondent nos. 4 to 6 and
proceedings were going on before the Registrar. On this statement of learned counsel for
the respondent no. 1, the writ petition was disposed of with the observation that nothing
survived in the matter inasmuch as Registrar had taken action and was seized of the
matter.
2. Present review petition is filed seeking review of the aforesaid order dated 8 th
May, 2009. It is predicated on the plea that the aforesaid statement made by the learned
counsel for the respondent no. 1 to the effect that show-cause notices were issued to
respondent nos. 4 to 6 and the proceedings were going on before the Registrar, was
incorrect statement. The reasons, because of which the petitioner could not appear on 8th
May, 2009 are stated in the review petition. Since there is a delay of 55 days in
preferring the review petition, application for condonation of delay is also filed.
3. Notice in this review petition was issued and duly served upon the respondent
no.1. In order to find out the correct factual position, on 22nd January, 2001, the
Registrar of Cooperative Societies was also directed to appear in the Court on the next
date of hearing. Pursuant to this order, affidavit dated 17th February, 2010 of Sh. R.K.
Saxena, Assistant Registrar was filed. He has also appeared in the Court today. In the
aforesaid affidavit, specific averment is made that on the complaint filed by the
petitioners, the Registrar had ordered an enquiry under Section 61 of the Delhi
Cooperative Societies Act vide office order no. 1451 dated 30th June, 2006. Shri P.C. Jain,
Joint Registrar (GAD), Govt. of NCT of Delhi was appointed as Inspecting Officer to
look into the allegations of the complainants. He submitted his report on 22 nd August,
2006. After receiving that report, the Registrar had issued show-cause notice under Rule
25 of the Act to respondent nos. 4 to 6 and also to one Sh. K.L. Bhargava. It is also
specifically stated that proceedings were initiated and were going on and the next date
of hearing was 23rd February, 2010.
4. Mr. A.C. Verma, Registrar, submits that proceedings in respect of two persons
namely Smt. Rita Bhargava and Mr. K.K. Bhargava have been concluded and orders have
also been passed finding no merit in the complaint. Mr. Verma, further informs that in
respect of other two persons namely Mr. K.L. Bhargava and Mr. Raj Pathak, arguments
have been concluded and orders are likely to be passed in next few days.
5. The aforesaid facts would demonstrate that the learned counsel for respondent
no.1 had not made any incorrect statement on May 8, 2009 as it has come on record
that the show cause notices had infact been issued to the aforesaid persons and
proceedings were initiated.
6. Other grievance raised in the review petition is that another relief sought by the
petitioner is not dealt with. This is contained in the prayer clause (iii) and reads as
under:-
"To direct the Respondent no.1 to take the necessary legal
action and respondent no.2 for charging the money in the
name of entry fee and development charges and also direct
the respondent no.2 to refund the money totaling about 5-05
lacs to the fifteen members of the petition named in the letter
dated 24-06-2005 given to the respondent No.2, taken in the
name of entry fee and development charges from these
members and residents of the respondent no.2"
7. Mr. Verma states that he would look into this grievance of the petitioner and if
any action is initiated so far, he will take steps to examine the grievance within one week.
In view of the aforesaid statement of Mr. Verma, no directions are needed in this behalf
except that Mr. Verma will remain bound by his statement and will take appropriate
action. It is pointed out by the respondent that such complaints can be filed only by
individual members under Section 17 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act. This aspect
shall also be examined by the Registrar and appropriate orders shall be passed therein.
The review petition and applications stand disposed of.
(A.K. SIKRI)
JUDGE
(SIDDHARTH MRIDUL)
JUDGE
JULY 09, 2010
skb
