Ranvir Singh Garg vs Ordinance Factories Officers ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 4188 Del

$~7
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                             Date of decision: 5th September, 2014

+     W.P.(C) 2831/2014
      RANVIR SINGH GARG                                   ..... Petitioner
                            Through:   Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate

                            versus

      ORDINANCE FACTORIES OFFICERS C G H S LTD & ANR.
                                                          ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Rajiv Vig, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

GITA MITTAL, J (Oral)

1. The petitioner challenges the award dated 28th February, 2013 passed by the Arbitrator on consideration of the dispute under Section 70 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 as well as order dated 20th March, 2014 passed by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal dismissing his appeal against the award.

W.P. (C) No. 2831/2014 Page | 1

2. The disputes between the parties are within a narrow compass and to the extent necessary are noticed hereinafter.

3. The petitioner became a member of the respondent No.1-Society in the year 1996 and submits that on the 31st July, 1997 by a notice dated 31st July, 1997 he was called upon to pay the cost of "car parking space" in the stilt in the society which was quantified at `54,600/- and this amount was paid by him. Based on this communication, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to a specific ear marked space for parking in the stilt.

4. We have been taken through the record of the case as well as the impugned award and order of the Tribunal, which have noticed the following defence of the Society:-

"c. That the claimant has filed a claim petition inter alia alleging that he applied for membership in 1996 and booked a three bedroom flat and paid Rs.10,21,000/- towards cost of three bed-room flat including Rs.54,600/- for car parking of specific size of 210 sq. fts. in the stilt. In this regard the petitioner relied upon letter dt. 31.07.1997 (Annexure P-3). It is pertinent to mention here that letter dt. 31.7.1997 was issued by the respondent society to its members, after signing of contract with the contractor, informing them (as per para 2 of letter dt. 31.7.1997) that contract has been signed and carrying out construction of flats @ Rs.535 per sq.ft. and stilt @Rs.260/- per sq. ft.

Reference is also made in this regard to the original tender

W.P. (C) No. 2831/2014 Page | 2 document pertaining to following items included in construction of stilt:-

      i)        Complete foundation work;
      ii)       Raising of columns to roof level of Stilt'
      iii)      Casting of roof slab for Stilt;
      iv)       Completion of electric work;
      v)        Completion of flooring of Stilt;
      vi)       Plastering, painting & other miscellaneous work


      i.        The total stilt area is also indicated as 37,800 sq. ft. which if

divided by 180 dwelling units in the society then the same works out to be 210 sq. ft. (37,80/180=210) of the appropriate area per flat. Based on above scope of work for the stilt the final construction cost, as mentioned above, was concluded @Rs.535/- per sq.ft. for flats and Rs.260/- per sq.ft. for stilt.

ii. Thus, Rs.260/- per sq. ft. was the cost of construction of stilt area and 210 sq. ft. was the apportioned stilt area per flat, which if multiply, comes to Rs.54,600/-. As such payment of Rs.54,600/- (i.e. 210 sq. ft. XRs.260 per sq. ft. + 54,600) was made by each member towards the construction of stilt area which included construction of various above-mentioned items.

iii. The General Body of the society after discussion decided to utilize the free space in stilt for car parking and accordingly, allowed members to park one car free of any charges in the

W.P. (C) No. 2831/2014 Page | 3 stilt area.

iv. It is submitted that due stilt design and column/ pillar placement in the stilt puts restricts on full usage of available free space in the stilt for car parking and results into shortage of car parking space for even 180 members. This issue has been discussed many times in many GBMs. The petitioner participated in those meetings and was a consenting party to the decisions taken therein but still did not comply with the same."

5. The respondents have also submitted that the petitioner had accepted this position for a period of twelve years after allotment of his flat in the year 2000 till he lodged his claim in June, 2012.

6. Perusal of the record also shows that the amount of `54,600/- was uniformly charged from all members/ flat owners after the details thereof were fully conveyed to everybody. It is submitted that the Society has equitably divided the available space to enable all members of the Society to park one car in the common stilt parking area within the boundaries of the Society, which is used in the spirit of cooperation by all members of the Society. The Arbitrator has noted that if a second car is owned by any member of the Society, it has to be parked outside the stilt for which extra maintenance charges are being charged by the Society.

7. It appears that petitioner was a member of the Managing Committee of the Society for a period of three years. The petitioner claims that he has attended the Society meetings only two-three times. Be that as it may, the amount of `54,600/-has been uniformly charged

W.P. (C) No. 2831/2014 Page | 4 from all members/ flat owners of the Society towards the cost of stilt parking and not even a single member has been allotted / ear marked space for parking.

8. The apprehension of the respondents is that on assigning of a designated space, disputes will arise as the members/ flat owners including the petitioner do not park the cars in the inner side stilt parking area where there is no direct passage to the exterior. The counsel for respondents has placed before us photographs of the stilt area which shows that the petitioner is parking his car in the stilt. Photographs of the petitioner's car parked in the stilt area amply illustrate the position apprehended by the society.

9. We find that there is no document which would manifest petitioner's claim on record of specified and exclusive parking. No specific parking space has been ear marked to any person. We agree with the submissions of the society that designation of a specified space in the existing space in the stilt parking area is completely unworkable. The impugned orders have therefore rightly held the stilt area to be utilized in this manner.

10. It is submitted that the petitioner relied upon the case of one Jaswant Kapur (Case No. 317/02-DCT, Ordnance Factories Officer's Coop Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Shree Jaswant Kapoor, decided on 17th November, 2005). It is submitted by respondent's counsel that the Society did not have the complete record of the case and would be taking appropriate legal action in respect of orders which have been passed. In any case, we have gone through the record of the present case and have

W.P. (C) No. 2831/2014 Page | 5 carefully considered the position which would arise in case the prayer made by petitioner is accepted. The orders passed in the case of Jaswant Kapur (Supra) is therefore of no avail to the petitioner.

11. We find no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed.

CM No. 14061/2014 (u/S 340 of the Cr.P.C.) For the view expressed by us in the writ petition, we are not inclined to proceed with this application. It is hereby rejected.

                                                        GITA MITTAL, J



                                                            SUNIL GAUR, J

SEPTEMBER 05, 2014
r




W.P. (C) No. 2831/2014                                              Page | 6