Delhi High Court
Trilok Nath Mohan vs The Registrar, The Office Of The ... on 25 July, 2017
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1325/2013 and CM No. 2516/2013 and 26180/2017
TRILOK NATH MOHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Tejveer S. Bhatia and Mr Rohan
Swarup, Advs.
versus
THE REGISTRAR, THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, GNCTD
and Ms Deboshree Mukherjee, Adv for R-1
Mr Sushil Dutt Salwan, Mr Himan Kaushik, Adv
for Respondent No.2/DDA
Mr Mohit Kumar, Adv for R-3/Society
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
ORDER
% 25.07.2017
1. In the course of arguments, we have repeatedly requested the
learned counsel for the petitioner to point out any document which
can demonstrate that the petitioner had been inducted as a member of
the respondent No.3/Society in the year 1969 or even thereafter or in
the alternate, show us the share certificate issued in favour of the
petitioner so as to satisfy us that he was actually a regularly inducted
wait-listed member of the Society. No such document has been
produced or pointed out from the records. Instead, learned counsel for
the petitioner states that he may be permitted to withdraw the present
petition.
2. Ideally, the request made ought to be granted only after putting
the petitioner to terms, having regard to the fact that this case has
been lingering for the past four years and was taken up on at least 23
dates. The records reveals that a number of adjournments have been
sought by learned counsel for the petitioner. Finally, on the last date,
it was clarified that no request for adjournment shall be entertained on
the next date of hearing. However, having regard to the fact that the
petitioner was 90 years old when he had filed the present petition and
he has expired in the year 2016, whereafter his legal heirs were
brought on record, we are refraining from imposing costs on the
petitioners for wasting judicial time.
3. At this stage, Mr Salwan, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2/DDA, states that vide letter dated 17.01.2013 addressed by the
DDA to the Secretary of the respondent No.3/Society, it was clarified
that under Clause (VIII) of the Agreement executed between the
Principal Lessor and the Society, the unallotted plots bearing No.1 to
7, were to be resumed back for further disposal by the Lessor.
4. It has been enquired from learned counsel as to whether any
steps for resumption have been taken by the DDA. He states that he
has no clear instructions.
5. The respondent No.2/DDA is directed to ensure that if they
have not taken any the follow up action, pursuant to the letter dated
17.01.2013 addressed to the respondent No.3/Society, the same is
taken in a time-bound manner, preferably within three months from
today.
6. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn along with the pending
applications.
HIMA KOHLI, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
JULY 25, 2017
bg
