Delhi High Court
Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Members ... vs Registrar Of Co Operative ... on 28 August, 2017
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4432/2017 & C.M. Nos.19350/2017,25180/2017
DELHI NAGRIK SEHKARI BANK MEMBERS ASSOCIATION
AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Mr. Siddharth, Advocates.
versus
REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC for R-1.
Mr. Vivek Singh for R-2 with Mr. Naveen Kataria,
Administrator, Mr. Kaushal Kishore, Returning
Officer and Mr. Ramesh Tiwari, IAS (retd.),
former Administrator.
Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Anil Kumar, Mr. Virendra Kumar and
Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Advocates for Intervenors.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
ORDER
% 28.08.2017
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia
for setting aside the verification report dated 28.2.2017, jointly submitted by
the respondent No.3/Administrator and the respondent No.4 and further, for
issuing directions to the respondents to prepare a proper verified list of
members of the respondent No.2/Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Limited, in
accordance with the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act and Rules.
2. On 22.5.2017, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner
had contended that on a perusal of the verification report dated 28.2.2017,
filed by the respondent No.3/Administrator, it is apparent that though
specific directions had been issued by the Court vide order dated 11.1.2017
passed in W.P.(C) 9271/2016 entitled Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Members
Association & Anr. Vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Anr., that all
the objections received from various quarters must be examined and dealt
with, the said exercise has not been undertaken completely. To substantiate
the said submission, learned counsel had submitted that the report itself
states that a final a list of members has not been verified and the non-
verified members are to the extent of 15117.
3. Having regard to the aforesaid plea, it was deemed appropriate to
direct the R-3/Administrator and the respondent No.4 to appear before us
and assist us on the aforesaid aspect. Appearance was entered by the
respondents No.3 and 4 on 19.7.2017 and they had asked for permission to
file a status report for giving necessary clarifications as to why members
numbering 15117, had not been verified by them.
4. Pursuant thereto, a status report dated 16.8.2017 came to be filed by
the respondents No.3 and 4 on 17.8.2017 wherein it has been explained that
the number of members whose KYC documents were found deficient during
the verification, are 15117. In para 9 of the status report, a break up of the
said 15117 members has been furnished with details of the deficiencies
related to them. In para 10, the details of those members who did not submit
their proof of address, the members who were not found residing at the
given address, those who had furnished incomplete KYC information forms
and had not provided their photos and signatures, has been furnished. The
last category in the list is of those members who were rejected, as per the
guidelines of the RCS. The said report was furnished to the counsel for the
petitioner on 22.8.2017 and he had sought time to examine the same.
5. Mr. Kiriti Uppal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner
submits today that the aspect of dual membership in the respondent
No.2/Bank has not been examined by the Administrator. On a specific
query being posed to learned counsel as to whether the names and details of
the said members allegedly holding dual membership were submitted to the
respondent No.3/Administrator, he admits that no such list was furnished at
the relevant time. Instead, he states that a ground has been taken in para 13
of the present petition. Para 13 only states that the aspect of dual
membership has been dealt with in a casual manner.
6. We may note that in the report dated 28.2.2017, respondents No.3 and
4 have stated that to the best of their knowledge, dual/duplicate members
within the respondent No.2/Bank have been eliminated and the office of the
RCS can undertake a similar exercise to eliminate dual membership from
other similar societies like co-operative Banks, Thrift and Credit Societies
etc. as that they may have the list of such members. Pertinently, no
challenge has been laid to this observation.
7. We see no reason for expanding the scope of the present petition,
more so, when the election that was to be conducted on 21.9.2014, was set
aside vide order dated 19.9.2014 passed by the Division Bench in WP(C)
No. 6274/2014 and ever since then, several Administrators have been
appointed by the RCS from time to time, in the absence of a duly elected
Executive Committee to manage the affairs of the respondent No.2/Bank.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/RCS informs us that
Mr. Naveen Kataria has been appointed as an Administrator on 05.5.2017
and a Returning Officer was appointed prior thereto, on 10.04.2017, for
conducting the elections of the Executive Committee. Though, there is no
stay operating, it appears that the Returning Officer has not taken any step to
start the process of conducting the elections of the Executive Committee of
the respondent No.2/Bank, by issuing a Notification and declaring a
schedule.
9. Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Senior Advocate appearing for the intervenors
states that it would be appropriate if a retired Judge of the High Court is
appointed as an independent Observer to oversee the election of the
Executive Committee of the respondent No.2/Society. Counsels for the
parties are agreeable to the said suggestion.
10. To ensure that a free and fair election of the Executive Committee of
the respondent No.2/Society is conducted, we appoint Justice Kailash
Gambhir (Retd.) (Mobile No. 9871300033) as an Observer for which his fee
is fixed as Rs.2.00 lakhs, to be borne by the respondent No.2/Society. The
Observer shall ensure that the Returning Officer notifies the schedule of the
election of the Executive Committee and takes all further steps thereafter, to
conduct a free and fair election expeditiously.
11. We may clarify that the present order is being passed so as to obviate
any scope of allegations/counter allegations likely to be levelled with regard
to the conduct of the election and to ensure that all steps taken in furtherance
thereto, are overseen by the Observer. It is directed that only 14673
members, as verified by the respondent No.3 and 4 vide their report dated
28.2.2017, shall be permitted to participate in the said election.
12. The Returning Officer shall appear before the Observer on
06.09.2017, at 4 PM along with a draft schedule for conducting the election,
that shall be vetted and directed to be notified at the earliest. On conclusion
of the election of the Executive Committee and on the result being declared,
the Observer shall file a status report within four weeks.
13. At this stage, it is stated by Mr. Uppal, Senior Advocate that the
petitioner proposes to approach the respondent No.1/RCS for raising an
objection with regard to the dual membership aspect. While the petitioner is
at liberty to do so, it is made clear that this shall not be a reason to delay the
elections any further.
14. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications.
Dasti under signatures of the Court Master to the counsel for
respondent No.1/RCS and the Returning Officer. A copy of this order shall
be despatched forthwith to the Observer for information.
HIMA KOHLI, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
AUGUST 28, 2017
ap/rkb
