Delhi High Court
Santokh Singh vs Registrar Of Cooperative ... on 15 May, 2017
$~6.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3973/2017 and CM APPL. 17455/2017
SANTOKH SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate
versus
REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Manzar Anis, Advocate for
Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
ORDER
% 15.05.2017
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who claims to be
the Secretary of the Safdurjung Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.,
praying inter alia for quashing an order dated 20.03.2017 passed by the
respondent/RCS, whereunder an Administrator has been appointed under
Section 35(5) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003, to manage the
affairs of the Society and conduct the election of the Managing Committee
of the Society.
2. On the last date of hearing, counsel for the respondent, who had
appeared on advance notice, had sought time to obtain instructions with
regard to the background in which the order dated 20.03.2017 came to be
passed.
3. Today, learned counsel for the respondent/RCS hands over a copy of
the judgment dated 17.04.2017 passed by the Supreme Court in connected
appeals, including Civil Appeal No.6803-6804/2013 entitled DDA vs.
Sardarjung Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and Ors., wherein it
has been held that the revival of Safdarjung Co-operative Group Housing
Society and two other Societies, namely, Bankmens Co-operative Group
Housing Society Ltd. and Palwell Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd.
is illegal and the memberships are not genuine. As a result, the appeals filed
by the DDA in all the three cases were allowed and DDA was directed to
refund the money deposited, to the respective Societies alongwith interest,
with further directions that the Societies shall ensure that the amounts
deposited by the members are refunded to them within four weeks
thereafter.
4. We have enquired from learned counsel for the petitioner as to
whether he has referred to the aforesaid judgment dated 17.4.2017 in the
present petition that came to be filed on 03.05.2017. Learned counsel for the
petitioner argues that he need not mention the aforesaid judgment as the
relief prayed for in the present petition is confined to the order dated
20.03.2017, passed by the respondent/RCS.
5. Having regard to the fact that the Supreme Court has declared that the
Society in question is itself illegal and the monies deposited by it with the
DDA for allotment of a plot, ought to be returned for being refunded in turn
to its members, the order dated 20.03.2017 passed by the respondent/RCS
looses significance.
6. We are of the opinion that costs ought to be imposed on the petitioner
for deliberately withholding material information from the Court,
particularly, since it is not denied by learned counsel that his client is aware
of the order dated 17.04.2017 passed by the Supreme Court in the captioned
appeal. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed alongwith the
pending application with costs of Rs.10,000/- imposed on the petitioner, to
be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within
two weeks. It is made clear that till the petitioner deposits the said costs and
furnishes the receipt, the petition filed by him before the Financial
Commissioner shall not be proceeded with any further.
A copy of this order shall be forwarded forthwith to the Financial
Commissioner for perusal and compliance.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
MAY 15, 2017
rkb
