Delhi High Court
Sangeeta Gupta vs Registrar Cooperative Societies ... on 22 July, 2016
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision : 22nd July, 2016
+ REVIEW PET. 95/2016 in W.P.(C) 3968/2015
SANGEETA GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Rajiv Vig, Adv.
versus
REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE
SOCIETIES AND ANR. ... Respondents
Through : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv.
for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
GITA MITTAL, J.
1. By way of the instant petition, the appellant seeks a review
of the order dated 2nd of December 2015 whereby we had ordered
as follows :
"10. In order to bring the disputes between the parties
to an end, it is directed as follows :-
(i) The respondent-society shall inform the petitioner
of her dues with interest as detailed in para 9
within a period of two weeks from today.
(ii) Subject to the petitioner depositing the said
amount within a further period of three months
thereafter, the membership of the petitioner shall
stand restored.
(iii) The orders dated 23rd February, 2012 and 18th
March, 2014 are set aside and quashed in the
above terms.
This appeal and the application are disposed of in
the above terms."
2. The review petitioner has claimed that after the passing of
the above order, the respondents have offered her a five bedroom
flat and have sought payment of dues towards such flat. However,
the petitioner had applied and enrolled for only a two bedroom flat
and the respondents cannot compel her to make payment towards
five bedroom flat. Mr. Rajiv Vij, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that she is entitled to the two bedroom flat and can be
legally called upon to make payment only towards such allotment.
3. We are further informed that the petitioner has deposited an
amount of `5,00,000/- with the respondent no.2 society after the
passing of our order dated 26th April, 2016 without prejudice to her
rights and contentions.
4. Appearing for the respondent no.2 society, Mr. Sandeep
Kumar, Advocate informs us that since the passing of the last
order, an Administrator has been appointed for managing the
affairs of the society. He further submitted that he has been
instructed to state that no two bedroom flat is available for
allotment with the society and only the five bedroom flat is
available.
This position is disputed by the petitioner who submits that
the respondent no.2 cannot take the shield of illegal enrolments and
change of seniority in order to deny the petitioner her legitimate
rights.
5. Dues can be claimed only for what is lawfully applied for
and relateable to the enrolment. In review jurisdiction, this court
has very limited jurisdiction and these disputes cannot be agitated
in the present matter. It is open to the petitioner to agitate her
rights and claims by way of appropriate legal proceedings.
6. In view thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for
leave to withdraw this review petition with liberty to invoke
appropriate remedy in accordance with law to assail the above
statement on behalf of the respondent no.2 and the demand which
has been made against her as well as enforce her entitlement.
7. It is made clear that the period stipulated by us in para 10 of
the order dated 2nd December, 2015 relates to payment towards the
flat for which the petitioner was enrolled and had applied and
cannot apply towards the demand made by the respondent no.2 for
allotment of another flat.
This review petition is disposed of in the above terms with
liberty to the petitioner as prayed for.
Dasti.
GITA MITTAL, J
I.S.MEHTA, J
JULY 22, 2016
aj
