Delhi High Court
Sh.Gyan Prakash Vishnoi vs The Secretary, Maharaja Saini ... on 16 September, 2011
Author: Sanjay Kishan Kaul
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 16.09.2011
+ WP(C) No. 6732/2011
SH.GYAN PRAKASH VISHNOI ...PETITIONER
Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate.
Versus
THE SECRETARY,
MAHARAJA SAINI COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY
LTD. & ORS.
...RESPONDENTS
Through: Mr.Rahul Bhandari, Advocate for
Mr.Rajiv Bansal, counsel for R-3/
DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
WPC No.6732/2011 Page 1 of 8
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. (ORAL)
CM No.13601/2011
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
+ WP(C) No.6732/2011
1. The petitioner claims to have become a member of the
R-1/Society on 31.12.1996 and deposited amounts
from time to time with R-1/Society totaling to
Rs.2,50,000/- up to the year 2000. The R-1/Society
was allotted a plot no.25, Sector 12, Dwarka
(Pappankala) admeasuring 4,500 square yards and this
information was furnished to the members including
the petitioner vide letter dated 16.04.2000 recording
that Rs.1,50,000/- had been paid by the petitioner and
thus the balance amount was Rs. 1,00,000/-, which is
stated to have been paid on 29.05.2000. The petitioner
claims that he shifted to another country but informed
the Managing Committee of R-1/Society about his fresh
contact address which was his permanent address
being E-100, Saket, New Delhi ('the Saket address' for
short) as was given in the original application form of
_____________________________________________________________________________________
membership of R-1/Society ('the application form' for
short). The writ petition does not thereafter referred to
any written communication by the petitioner or to him
for a period of 11 years as the petitioner claims that he
returned from abroad 10 years later in 2011 when he
contacted R-1/Society to enquire about status of his
flat. The petitioner was informed that he had been
expelled from membership of R-1/Society and the
membership had been cancelled. The request of the
petitioner for withdrawal of cancellation of the
membership did not receive positive response and thus
a communication was addressed in this behalf.
2. The R-1/Society informed the petitioner vide letter
dated 10.03.2011 that a demand letter had been sent
to the petitioner on 08.06.2003 which was returned
undelivered. The same was the fate of another letter
dated 05.09.2003 whereafter R-1/Society initiated
expulsion proceedings for all defaulting members.
Notice in this behalf was sent to the petitioner on
21.09.2003, 08.10.2003 and finally on 28.10.2003, but
all were returned back unserved.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
3. A public notice was also published in The Indian
Express & Jansatta on 08.11.2003 for the petitioner to
attend a meeting of the Managing Committee to be
held on 16.11.2003, but to no avail and thus the
expulsion of 19 persistent defaulters including the
petitioner was approved by the Managing Committee
on 16.11.2003. The R-1/Society thereafter approached
the R-2/RCS for approval of the expulsion on
20.11.2003 and the R-2/RCS heard the case on
09.12.2003, 23.12.2003 and 22.01.2004. The order
was finally passed on 10.02.2004. Before the final
hearing in the court of R-2/RCS, the R-1/Society had
published another public notice on 02.02.2004 as per
the instructions of the R-2/RCS. The R-2/RCS thus
finally passed an order on 17.02.2004 for outstanding
payments to be made to R-1/Society within one month
by all the persistent defaulters failing which the
expulsion as proposed by R-1/Society would
automatically stand approved.
4. The R-1/Society sent a demand letter to the petitioner
on 19.02.2004 for clearing the outstanding as on that
_____________________________________________________________________________________
date amounting to Rs.3,74,682/-, but these dues were
not cleared. The R-1/Society thus sent the refund
cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- on 10.06.2004, but even this
cheque was returned back unserved. R-1/Society thus
informed the petitioner to collect the amount after
submitting the original share certificate and receipts
issued in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner
claims to have again left for abroad and appointed one
Mr.Nitin Gupta as his attorney, who got the legal notice
served on the respondents through counsel dated
21.03.2011. This legal notice was responded to by the
R-1/Society on 15.04.2011 denying that the petitioner
had ever informed R-1/Society that he was leaving for
abroad nor any fresh address of the petitioner was
furnished to R-1Society at any point of time.
5. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that he had
never received any notice from either R-1/Society or R-
2/RCS about any demand or the expulsion proceedings.
Thus, the petitioner cannot be visited with adverse
consequences. A copy of the application form filed
along with the petition shows that the residential
_____________________________________________________________________________________
address given by the petitioner was not the Saket
address. The Saket address is on a printed format
which bears no date or any proof of delivery to
R-1/Society. The R-1/Society kept on sending
intimations to the petitioner and the same was the
position in respect of the notices issued by R-2/RCS at
the residential address given in the application form.
Publication in newspapers was also carried out.
6. We thus find that the petitioner has been unable to
substantiate that he had informed R-1/Society about
change in his address and both R-1/Society and
R-2/RCS took all the necessary steps to inform the
petitioner about further demands and expulsion
proceedings but the envelopes sent were returned
back undelivered as they were sent at the address
given in the application form.
7. The most important fact in the present case is that the
petitioner was fully aware of the allotment of land vide
the letter of the Society dated 16.04.2000 and paid the
contribution demanded towards the land cost. There
has been a silence on the part of the petitioner after
_____________________________________________________________________________________
that. The petitioner could have hardly expected for the
construction of flats to be carried out without funding
from the members. The very purpose of a cooperative
society is that all the members contribute towards the
cost and thus if some of the members are defaulters, it
can have negative ramifications for other members.
The silence on the part of the petitioner is for more
than a decade as he went abroad. If the petitioner
chooses to go abroad for so long as more than a
decade and does not communicate with R-1/Society,
the petitioner cannot be permitted to now come and
claim a flat. It is a matter of public knowledge that
there has been considerable escalation in real estate
prices in Delhi and the petitioner now seems to be
attempting to take advantage of his original
membership to claim a flat though he has contributed
not a penny towards construction cost.
8. We thus find no merit in the writ petition which is
dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
9. We may note in the end that the petitioner has filed
some original documents along with the petition
_____________________________________________________________________________________
including the share certificate, receipts of payments
and letters. He may require the same to submit them
to R-1/Society for seeking refund of his initial deposit
and thus these documents can be released to the
petitioner on his obtaining certified copies of these
documents and filing the same on record.
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2011 RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
dm
_____________________________________________________________________________________
