Delhi High Court
Parvinder Singh Sawhney vs The Talagang Group Housing ... on 27 May, 2014
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 27.05.2014
+ W.P.(C) 3449/2014
PARVINDER SINGH SAWHNEY ... Petitioner
versus
THE TALAGANG GROUP HOUSING
COOPERATIVE SOCIETY & ORS ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Manoj Kumar Garg
For the Respondent No.2 : Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal with Mr Hem Kumar
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.03.2014
passed by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal in Appeal No. 7/2014. The said
appeal was directed against the order dated 01.12.2011 passed by the
respondent No. 2, whereby the allotment of a flat in the respondent No.1
society, insofar as the petitioner was concerned, was cancelled.
2. We may point out that the order dated 01.12.2011 was the subject
matter of a writ petition being WP(C) 3890/2012, which was disposed of on
23.07.2012. That writ petition was disposed of along with two other writ
petitions being WP(C) 3891/2012 (Arvinder Singh Sawhney v. Talagang
Group Housing Cooperative Society and Others) and WP(C) 4028/2012
(Simar Singh Sawhney v. Talagang Group Housing Cooperative Society and
Others). The said three writ petitions were disposed of together by a
common order dated 23.07.2012, the operative portion of which reads as
under:-
"It is stated that the ultimate decision is based on the reasoning as
contained in para 5.8.7 of the report of enquiry in respect of the
respondent society, which were prepared in pursuance of the
orders passed by a bench of this Court. The finding is that there
are no members junior to the petitioners, to whom any allotment
was made under Category-A - to which they belong.
Thus, it is submitted that de-hores (sic) any other aspect, since
there are only three flats, and there were three senior eligible
members other than the petitioners, who were entitled to the flats,
the petitioners cannot be allotted the flats.
We have some caveat to the reasoning adopted by the concerned
officer while dealing with the issue of minority, but are of the
view that the present proceedings would not be the appropriate
ones to go into the matter further, because the petitioners are not
entitled to flats as, persons senior to the petitioners, are entitled to
the same, and there are no spare flats available to be allotted in
the Category-A.
The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed."
(underlining added)
3. In that writ petition [i.e. WP(C) 3890/2012], the petitioner herein was
also a petitioner. It is now stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the writ petition was pursued by his father (respondent No. 3 herein)
without any authority.
4. Thereafter, the very same order dated 01.12.2011 was again
challenged by the petitioner herein by way of a writ petition being
WP(C) 6319/2013 and the same was disposed of on 04.10.2013 by an order
passed by a Division Bench of this Court. The same reads as under:-
"The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 1st
December, 2011 passed by respondent No. 2 cancelling the
allotment of Flat No. 423, Category-A, Rohini in Talang Group
Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. 49, Sector-13, Rohini, New
Delhi against the membership No. 568 to him.
We find that against the order of Registrar of Cooperative
Societies, the Legislature has provided a statutory appeal to the
Delhi Co-operative Tribunal under Section 112 of the Delhi Co-
operative Society Act, 2003.
The petitioner makes a grievance that the respondents have
utilized the shield of certain steps including litigation taken by
his father which were completely without his authority and
cannot be hold against him. We make it clear that it shall be
open to the petitioner to take such grounds before the Delhi Co-
operative Tribunal and the same shall be examined on merits
and orders shall be passed thereon.
In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to
withdraw the instant petition with leave to invoke the statutory
remedy available under Section 112 of the Delhi Co-
operative Society Act, 2003 before the Delhi Co-operative
Tribunal.
The writ petition is disposed of with liberty as prayed for.
Dasti."
5. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred the said appeal No. 7/2014 before
the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal which dismissed the same by virtue of the
impugned order dated 31.03.2014. The said Tribunal has not believed the
story of the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the earlier writ
petitions and that he had not authorized his father to represent him. The
Tribunal has also noted that, in any event, even if it is assumed that the
earlier petitions were filed by the petitioner's father without the petitioner's
authority, they were all for the benefit of the petitioner and did not make a
case contrary to the one pleaded before the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal
came to the conclusion that, looked at from any angle, the petitioner does not
have any case inasmuch as the petitioner would not be entitled to allotment
because there was no flat available. This is so because other persons senior
to the petitioner, who were eligible, were allotted the flats which were then
available for allotment.
6. We may also point out that the story of the petitioner is not believable
even by us inasmuch as the petitioner has alleged that he became aware that
the earlier petitions were filed without his authority sometime in October,
2013 but, the petitioner filed a complaint of forgery etc. against his father
only on 25.03.2014 and that, too, when the matter was pending before the
Tribunal.
7. In the foregoing circumstances, no interference with the impugned
order is called for. The writ petition is dismissed.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
MAY 27, 2014
SR
