Delhi High Court
S N Balasubramanian vs Green Valley Cghs Ltd. & Ors. on 8 September, 2017
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2186/2015
S N BALASUBRAMANIAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.N. Singhvi, Advocate along
with Mr. Ankur Sethia, Advocate.
versus
GREEN VALLEY CGHS LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC,
GNCT along with Ms. Divyani
Sehgal, Advocate for R-3/RCS.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
ORDER
% 08.09.2017
1. The petitioner who is a member of the respondent No.1/ Society has
filed the present petition being aggrieved by a letter dated 29.01.2014, issued
by the respondent No. 3/RCS dismissing a complaint received from one Sh.
Bijay Kumar Sahoo who objected to the approval for grant of membership to
the respondent No. 2 in respect of flat no. J -301.
2. When the petitioner was neither a complainant before the RCS, nor a
party to any proceedings that has resulted in the issuance of the impugned
letter dated 29.01.2014, we have enquired from learned counsel for the
petitioner as to how would the present petition be maintainable directly in this
Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that a specific averment
has been made in para 11 of the petition to the effect that the petitioner was a
member of the earlier Managing Committee of the respondent No. 1/Society
and though an appeal ought to have been filed by the respondent No.
1/Society against the decision conveyed vide letter dated 29.01.2014,
approving membership to the respondent No. 2, no such appeal has been filed.
Hence, the present petition.
4. Even if that be the case, the petitioner is always at liberty, to raise a
dispute against the respondent No. 1/Society with regard to the approval of
membership granted to the respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 1/RCS,
under the Delhi Cooperative Society Act. If such a dispute is raised, it would
require adjudication only after examination of the documents of allotment in
favour of the respondent No. 2 and the affidavits they would be filed by the
parties.
6. However, this exercise cannot be undertaken in a petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by invoking the powers of judicial
review of this Court.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with liberty granted to
the petitioner to raise a dispute with the respondent No. 1/Society in respect of
the approval granting membership to the respondent No. 2 before the
appropriate forum, in accordance with law.
8. As an interim order dated 09.03.2015 was passed in the present case,
calling upon the parties to maintain status qua in respect of the right, title and
interest in the subject flat, it is directed that the said order shall continue to
operate for the period of four weeks, within which, the petitioner is expected
to seek legal recourse.
9. The petition is disposed of while leaving the parties to bear their own
expenses.
HIMA KOHLI, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
SEPTEMBER 08, 2017
ss
