Delhi High Court
Bankmens Co-Operative Group ... vs Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 16 May, 2017
$~12.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 476/2013
BANKMENS CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD
..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Chandrika Gupta, Advocate
versus
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND OTHERS
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Niti Jain, Advocate for Mr. Anuj
Aggarwal, ASC for R-1/RCS.
Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate for R-2/DDA.
Mr. Satvik Varma, Advocate with Mr. Lautaksh
Joshi, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
ORDER
% 16.05.2017
1. The petitioner/Society has filed the present petition praying inter alia
for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondent No.2/DDA, directing it
to restore the original location of the plot in question in its favour in terms of
the original layout plan prepared by the DDA and deliver possession of the
subject plot forthwith.
2. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/DDA states that
prior to filing the present petition, the petitioner/Society had filed W.P.(C)
3546/2012, for seeking directions to the DDA to deliver the possession of
the allotted plot to it. Vide order dated 23.07.2012, the said petition was
disposed of by the High Court with directions issued to the DDA to process
the petitioner's case for handing over possession of the allotted plot to it
within one month.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, DDA had filed an appeal before the
Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No.6805/2013), which has recently been
decided vide judgment dated 17.04.2017. The said judgment is common to
Civil Appeal No.6805/2013, 6803-04/2013 and 8627/2014, whereunder it
has been held that the revival of the petitioner/Society and the other two
societies was illegal and was manipulated by persons, who had no
connection with the respective Societies. As a result, the appeals filed by the
respondent No.2/DDA against the order dated 23.07.2012 passed in W.P.(C)
3546/2012 and other petitions was allowed. The operative paras of the
captioned judgment of the Supreme Court, is reproduced herein below for
ready reference:-
"21. In view of the above discussion we are clearly of the view that
the revival of the Societies was illegal. It was manipulated by persons
who had no connection with the Societies. We are prima facie of the
view that the builder mafia had a big hand in getting the Societies
revived. Hence we hold that the very revival of the Societies is
illegal and the memberships are not genuine and hence the appeals
are allowed. However, there may be some members of the Societies
who must have been duped by the promoters. Therefore, we direct
the DDA to refund the money deposited to the Societies along with
interest @10% p.a with effect from the date when the money was
deposited with the DDA. The amount be paid within 2 months from
today. The Societies shall in turn ensure that within 4 weeks
thereafter the amount deposited by the members is returned to them
along with the interest aforesaid. This will alleviate the hardship of
genuine members.
22. Accordingly, Civil Appeal Nos. 6805 of 2013 and 6803-6804 of
2013 filed by the DDA are allowed and the judgments/orders of the
Delhi High Court 23.07.2012 , 27.02.2012 & 22.08.2012 are set
aside and the Writ Petition (C) Nos. 3546, 1168 and 5109 of 2012
filed by Bankmens CGHS and Safdarjung CGHS are dismissed with
the aforesaid terms."
4. In view of the aforesaid decision, nothing further survives for
adjudication in the present petition, which is dismissed and the interim
orders are vacated.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner/Society states that her
client proposes to file an application before the Supreme Court for seeking
review of the judgment dated 17.04.2017.
6. If the petitioner succeeds in the review application proposed to be
filed before the Supreme Court, it shall be at liberty to approach this Court
for seeking revival of the writ petition.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
MAY 16, 2017
rkb/ap
