Delhi High Court
Parveen Arora & Anr vs Registrar Cooperative Societies ... on 10 July, 2018
$~51, 56 and 57
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) No. 7057/2018
Date of decision: 10th July, 2018.
PARVEEN ARORA & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Manish Kaushik and
Mr. Mishal Johri, Advocates.
versus
REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES & ANR.
.......Respondents
Through: Ms. Sukriti Ghai, Advocate
for Mr. Devesh Singh, ASC (Civil)
GNCTD for R-1.
Mr. Mridul ain and Mr. Piyush Jain,
Advocates for R-2 and 3.
Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj, Advocate for
R-2, Administrator.
WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) No. 6355/2018
BISHAN SWAROOP VATS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Sagar, Mr.
Khowaja Siddiqui and Mr. Arup
Sinha, Advocates.
versus
REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES & ORS...
..... Respondents
Through:Mr. Madhu Sudan Bhoyana,
Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Mridul Jain and Mr. Piyush Jain,
Advocates for R-2 and 3.
Ms. Savita Prabhakar and Mr. Amit,
Advoctes for Mr. Jagjit Singh and Mr.
Purshottam Singh, Impleaders.
WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) No. 6053/2018
SEEMA SHARMA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Manish Kaushik and
Mr. Mishal Johri, Advocates.
versus
REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ORS.
... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mridul ain and Mr.
Piyush Jain, Advocates for R-2 and 3.
Mr. Madhu Sudan Bhoyana, Advocate
for R-1.
Mr. Fanish K. Jain and Deepanshu
Garg, Advocate for Interveners.
Mr. Aditya Kr. Sinha and Mr. Ranjeet
Kumar, Advocates for Pawan Arora.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
These writ petitions are a deliberate conceited attempt by
the petitioners to start another round of litigation immediately
after and on dismissal of their Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.
12168-12170/2011, Seema Sharma and Others versus
Registrar Cooperative Societies and Others by the Supreme
Court on 3rd May, 2018.
2. Within three weeks thereafter, on 28th May,2018 Writ
Petition (C) No. 6053/2018 was filed by Seema Sharma and
twelve others, predicating their claim on pretence of new facts
and cause of action. A Division Bench of this Court vide order
dated 30th May, 2018 has issued notice.
3. Thereafter, on 30th May, 2018, Writ Petition (C) No.
6355/2018 was filed by Bishan Swaroop Vat. By order dated 1st
June, 2018, this writ petition was directed to be listed with the
writ petition filed by Seema Sharma and others. Writ Petition
(C) No. 7057/2018 by Parveen Arora and Gouri Shankar was
filed on 7th July, 2018. This writ petition has been listed today
for the first time before this Court.
4. Shivaji Cooperative Group Housing Society ('Society'),
formed and incorporated in 1971, on 25th July, 1991 were
allotted two acres of land at Rohini for construction of flats for
members. Society had enrolled 120 members, who had paid for
the cost of land and construction of flats. On 27th September,
1998, the society decided to expel twenty two (22) members on
account of default in making timely payments towards cost of
construction. List of these members for approval was sent to the
Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Registrar, for short) on 3rd
October, 1998. Registrar vide order dated 3rd December, 1999
approved expulsion of 8 members. Case of one expelled
member, namely, A.N. Mohan, it was noted, was to be dealt
with in separate proceedings. Eight expelled members (and two
other members) had thereupon preferred a revision petition,
which was allowed by the Financial Commissioner vide order
dated 20th April, 2000. Their expulsion was set aside, subject to
payment being made. This compliance it is accepted was made.
Thus, the twenty two expelled members would continue to
remain members of the society, their seniority and entitlement
being maintained.
5. During pendency of the proceedings before the Registrar,
on 28th March, 1999, the Society perilously, if not dubiously,
passed a resolution for enrolment of new members. Petitioners
before us are the new members, who were enrolled on 11th April,
1999. These new members paid equalization amount and were
granted share certificates.
6. On 16th May, 1999, the governing body of the society
passed another resolution approving membership of the newly
enrolled persons and took a decision that those members who
had not paid the dues on time would not be eligible on priority.
7. Consequently there was litigation. To avoid prolixity we
would refer to judgment dated 3rd November, 2008 in Writ
Petition (C) Nos. 2338-53/2005, Neelam versus Financial
Commissioner and Others and other connected writ petitions.
The judgement is a detailed one and records various reasons and
grounds why the twenty two newly enrolled members could not
have been enrolled and affirms rights of the twenty two initial
members. For the purpose of present litigation, we may briefly
record the reasoning and grounds recorded in this decision.
i) Expulsion of twenty two members was not
approved by the Registrar/Financial Commissioner. The
said decision had attained finality. Hence, twenty two
expelled members were entitled under law to allotment of
flats.
ii) Society had acted illegally in enrolling new
members in March/April, 1999 when the issue of
expulsion of the earlier members was pending
consideration before the Registrar/Financial
Commissioner.
iii) Registrar vide order dated 9th October, 2000, had
refused to approve membership of the 22 newly enrolled
members.
iv) Society had illegally conducted draw of lots of the
constructed flats on 31st December, 2000. Names of
twenty two newly enrolled members, in whose case
membership had not been approved by the Registrar, were
included. Names of twenty two initial members,
notwithstanding that their expulsion had already been set
aside vide orders of the Registrar and Financial
Commissioner dated 3rd December,1999 and 20th
April,2000, were excluded.
v) Newly enrolled members were also illegally permitted
to occupy the flats, which were occupied by some of
them.
vi) The erstwhile expelled members, whose membership
was restored, had thereupon filed Writ Petition (C) No.
361/2001, which was disposed of vide common judgment
dated 7th January, 2002 observing that the draw of lots
held on 31st December, 2000 was contrary to law and in
violation of the directive dated 31st May, 1984 of the
Delhi Development Authority as it was not held by the
Delhi Development Authority and without approval of the
list of members of the Registrar. Draw of lots was
quashed with the direction that fresh draw of lots would
be held in accordance with the directive dated 31st May,
1984. As an Administrator had been appointed, he was
directed to take consequential action by taking possession
of the flats, which had been handed over.
vii) After pronouncement of the aforesaid judgment,
twenty two newly enrolled "members" approached the
Delhi High Court and had filed Writ Petition (C) No.
3409/2002 challenging their non-approval by the
Registrar. This writ petition was disposed of vide order
dated 28th May, 2002 directing the Registrar to take a
decision and pass a speaking order. Pursuant to the said
directions, the Registrar heard the petitioners/parties and
passed the order dated 30th July, 2002 again reiterating
that enrolment of twenty two new "members" was illegal
as there was no vacancy on 11th April, 1999. Further
expulsion of the earlier members was not approved and
the strength of the society had not been increased.
Financial Commissioner vide order dated 31st January,
2003 dismissed the revision petition filed by the twenty
two newly enrolled "members". Review application was
also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on 9th
December, 2004.
viii) In the aforesaid factual background, the Society
could not have enrolled any members as expulsion of the
twenty two members had been set aside and thus had not
created any vacancy.
ix) On the issue of increase in Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
and the contention that additional flats could be
constructed, it was observed that Delhi Development
Authority had issued letter dated 3rd December, 1999
increasing the strength from 120 to 138. Twenty two
persons had been enrolled as "members" on 11th April,
1999, i.e. before the letter dated 3rd December, 1999.
Enrolment was illegal. Hence, the order of the Financial
Commissioner could not be faulted on this ground and the
petitioners could not take shelter behind or under the
increase in FAR.
8. Having held against the petitioners, the Division Bench
tried to balance equities in view of the benefit of increased FAR.
As there was no definitive response from the Delhi
Development Authority (DDA) and the Municipal Corporation
of Delhi (MCD), on the said aspect, the following operative
directives were issued:-
"28. As no definite response has come
forward from the MCD or the DDA, we
proceed on the premise that there is an
increase in the FAR pursuant to which the
Society is permitted to construct additional
flats. It would, therefore, be open to the
Society to prepare and submit
appropriate plans for additional
construction to the MCD and/or DDA
and those authorities shall sanction
those plans, subject to fulfillment of
other requisite formalities, thereby
enabling the Society to carry out the
construction and accommodate the
petitioners.
29. In these circumstances, all these writ
petitions are disposed of with the following
directions:-
(a) The petitioners in WP(C)
No.2338-53/2005 and others namely,
22 persons who were purportedly
inducted on 11.4.1999, shall handover the
possession of the flats to the Administrator
within four months from today.
(b) These flats shall be allotted to
those 22 members who were expelled,
subject to the condition that they have
paid entire consideration and no further
amount is due from them. For this purpose,
draw of lots in respect of these 22 flats for the
said 22 members shall be held by the
Administrator. Thereafter, possession shall be
handed over to these members.
(c) In order to accommodate the
petitioners and other similarly situated
persons (22 in number), the newly
inducted members, we issue the following
directions:-
(ci) Due to the increase in the FAR
there is an increase in the membership
from 120 to 138. Therefore, 18 persons
can be accommodated by enrollment thereof
as new members out of 22 persons. By draw
of lots 18 out of these 22 persons shall be
selected and the said list shall be forwarded by
the Society to the Registrar, who shall approve
their membership. Remaining four person
shall be given refund of the amount paid
by them. We are not granting any interest
on this amount as during all this period
they enjoyed use and occupation of the
flats.
(cii) The Administrator shall submit
plans for construction of additional
flats to MCD/DDA within two weeks
from today. These shall be approved
within six weeks of their submission,
subject to fulfillment of other formalities.
Thereafter, the
, Society shall start construction of the new
flats and on completion of those flats,
possession thereof shall be handed over to
the newly recruited members.
(ciii) These 18 persons who were inducted
as members on 11.4.1999 had paid the entire
consideration in respect of these flats by the
end of year 2000 when the draw of lots
was held on 31.12.2000, Therefore, they
would only pay the, additional cost
incurred on the construction of these flats
meaning thereby from the total construction
cost of the new flats, the amount already paid
by them shall be adjusted and the balance
amour shall be shared by these 18 persons in
equal proportion or in the alternative.
In case these 18 persons are not agreeable
to new constructions at their cost in the manner
provided above, it would be open to them to
seek refund of the amount paid by them.
These persons shall exercise their option in
this behalf within two weeks from today to
enable the Administrator to proceed further in
the matter accordingly."
Direction (a) had clearly stipulated that twenty two
persons, who had been inducted as "members" on 11th April,
1999, shall hand over possession of the flats to the
Administrator within four months from the date of the decision.
It was further directed that these flats shall be allotted and
handed over to twenty two members, who had been earlier
expelled and whose expulsion has been set aside, subject to the
condition that they would pay entire consideration and no
amount was due. Draw of lots was to be held by the
Administrator and possession given. With regard to twenty two
newly inducted "members" whose admission/enrolment was
held to be illegal, the Administrator was to submit plans for
construction of additional flats to the MCD/DDA within two
weeks and they were required to approve the plans within six
weeks, subject to fulfilment of formalities. Directions were also
issued on the question of payment of money by the newly
inducted eighteen "members".
9. Some writ petitioners and others had thereafter filed
applications or applications for review of the judgment dated 3rd
November, 2008, which were disposed of by the Division Bench
vide order dated 28th July, 2010. This order specifically records
that there was hardly any challenge to the findings given in the
judgment dated 3rd November, 2008 holding that
removal/expulsion of twenty two members was illegal and
enrolment of "23" persons in their place was improper and
illegal. Primary contention raised was against the direction that
the newly enrolled "members", whose enrolment was held to be
illegal, should hand over possession of flats on the ground that
there could be more equitable formula for accommodating them
depending upon the facts of each case. After detailed hearing,
consent order dated 28th July,2010, recording the following
terms was passed:-
"9. The counsel for various parties were heard
from time to time on this aspect and during
the discussions, consensus emerged for
allotment of existing flats, construction of
new flats and allotment of new flats to those
members who would be left out. All these
proceedings, viz., review petitions, writ
petitions and miscellaneous applications are,
thus disposed of with the following consent
order. We may note that most of the parties
were present in the Court at the time when these
discussions took place and they have given their
consent to the following terms:
(1) We shall first take up the case of Roshan
Lal Jain and Pawan Kumar Arora. In respect
of Roshan Lal Jain, it is stated that he was not
allotted the flat since he was in default.
Roshal Lal Jain had committed default in
making the payments. That was the reason he
was not initially allotted the flat. His Plea was,
however, that he was not sent demand notice for
making payment and because of, this reason he
could not make the payment for which he was
not to be blamed. Against non allotment, he
approached the Registrar of Cooperative
Societies. Dispute was referred to the Arbitrator
who passed the award directing Roshal La1 Jain
to make the payment of the outstanding amount
alongwith interest. That amount has since
been paid. It is, therefore, agreed that there is
no impediment for allotment of flat to him.
(2) In so far as Pawan Kumar Arora is
concerned, it is conceded even by the review
petitioner that he has already may payment of
Rs.7,68,000/-. It is also stated by the, review
petitioner that his name for allotment was
approved by the Registrar way back in
9.7.2003. Therefore, he is also entitled to the
allotment of flat as well as immediate
possession.
(3) Twenty three members who were inducted
after the expulsion of the respondents are
occupying the flats. In the judgment dated
November 3, 2008, this fact has been taken note
of. Due to the increase in the FAR,
Membership is increased from 120 to 138 and,
therefore, 18 more persons can be
accommodated. Directions to the
Administrator was given to take step for
construction of the flats so that 18 more
persons out of these 23 person are
accommodated. As pointed out above, four
out of these 23 persons never approached.
Further, three persons have approached for the
first time in the proceedings in the High Court
by way of review petitions only. Therefore, it
is agreed sixteen persons who have been
agitating their matter would be accommodated
first and the three review petitioner would be
accommodated only thereafter.
(4) It is thus agreed that 17 respondents
would be accommodated in the first
instance, thereafter sixteen persons who
were the petitioners in writ petition 2338--
53/05 and at the end, the three persons who
have approached by way of review petition
17/2009 and 15/2009.
(5) Since it is agreed that 17 members
i.e. the respondents will be given allotment by
the society immediately, the following flats
from the following members will be
immediately got vacated and will be allotted to
the aforesaid 17 persons:-
Sl. Name Rev. Pet No. Flat No. Status
No.
1 Jaidev Dahiya 10 B-1/7 Shri Dinesh Rana
was found to be
in possession as
per the report of
the local
2 Abheshek Kumar Review B-1/8 Locked since
petitioner, allotted.
but did not
file the writ
petition
3 HarishKumar Sethi Review B-2/1 Has inducted
petitioner, but tenant vide
did not file agreement to sell
the writ dated 01.05.2006
petition
4 Ms. Shakuntala 8 B-3/2 Ms. Ritu was
Bhagat found to be in
possession since
5 Prakshwati Rathi 12 B-3/7 Ms. Alka was
found, but she
could not given
convincing
answer about her
relationship with
the petitioner.
6 Vishnu Sarup Vats Review B-4/2 Dr. N.K. Kaul
petitioner, but was found to be
did not file in possession.
the writ
petition
7 Mrs. G. Review B-6/2 B.B. Jain was
Ahlawadhi petitioner, but found to be a
did not file tenant since
the writ 2005-06
petition
8 Ms. Divya Syal Review B-6/5 Locked
petitioner, but
did not file
writ petition
Radhey Syal
is the then
Secretary of
the society
(6) Besides this, 2 flats will be vacated from the
two non members, who did not even challenge
the order of the RCS or of the Financial
Commissioner. One flat will be got vacated from
Smt. Santosh Bagri, whose name has not been
cleared and her name has not been approved by
the RCS till date and she has not
challenged or initiated any proceedings in
this behalf. One flat is lying vacant with the
society and is being used as its office. Thus, in
all, 12 flats will be available for allotment and
handing over of possession immediately to the
said 17 members.
(7) Five flats will be taken out for allotment to
the members by conducting a draw amongs the
remaining 12 non-members. As far as these
five members are concerned, they will be given
a notional and constructive possession of their
respective flats. They will be deemed to be the
owners of the said flats w.e.f from the date of
allotment. However, possession of flats will be
given to them on or before 31st October, 2011
by the respective occupants/non-members.
During this period, these non-memberrs will be
treated as licencee and they pay a sum of
Rs.10,000/- month on account of use and
occupation charges to the respective allottees
with effect from September, 2010. These non-
members/occupants will given an undertaking
to this Hon‟ble Court that they will hand over
the vacant and peaceful possession of their
respective flats by the aforesaid date, without
any objections and demur. They will also
undertake to keep on paying the use/occupation
charges as aforesaid on or before 7th day of
every months. In case of default of two
consecutive months, they will hand over the
vacant possession forthwith to the allottees.
They will also keep on paying the electricity,
water and other charges for this period. The
vacant possession of the flat will be given
irrespective of the construction and completion
of new flats as aforesaid.
(8) Out of the aforesaid flats which become
available, only two flats are in HIG category.
However, there are more persons among the
respondents who, had applied for HIG Flats.
Four respondents are represented by Ms.
Sunita Prabhakar and two by Mr. Poddar.
Both the counsel are claiming that their
clients should be given priority. In these
circumstances, suggestion was mooted that two
HIG flats which become available can be
allotted by Draw of Lots among the six
persons. This is, however, not acceptable to
Ms. Prabhakar. In these circumstances, we are
leaving this issue open for the parties to get the
issue determined in the appropriate proceedings
as to who will have prior claim for allotment of
these two HIG Flats.
New flats which are to be constructed, many
of those would he in HIG category and at
that stage all persons who have applied in HIG
category can be accommodated. Therefore, it
would be open to the other respondents who are
to be allotted HIG to occupy MIG Flats for time
being and thereafter shift to newly construct
HIG Flats.
(9) With regard to construction of new flats,
learned counsel for the Administrator pointed
out that he had received one feasibility report
for the proposed additional 16 flats in the
Society from the Architect Organic India in
which he has submitted that 12 HIG Flats
alongwith 2 lifts can be constructed on the „C‟
shape block (A1 to A-6) and similarly four MIG
Flats alongwith one lift can be constructed one a
linear block (B-5 to B-6) and now the
construction cost is reduced from
Rs.3,06,00,000/- to 2,85,00,000/-. The Architect
further submitted that around one and a half
year is required for completing the construction
after sanction from the local authorities.
(10) To obviate any chances of future dispute,
the Administrator can seek options for
HIG/MIG flats who are to be accommodated in
new constructed flats and flats can be construct
accordingly. The learned counsel for the society
informs that approximately Rs.1.35 crores are
the funds available with the Society. Rs.5 lacs
will be kept apart for making day to day
expenses and Rs. 1.30 crores would be
contributed for the construction of the flats.
The remaining amount shall be contributed
by the review petitioners and others who are
going to be accommodated in these new flats in
equal proportion. The administrator can
convene a meeting of these persons in order to
know their preference.
(11) The Registrar of Cooperative Societies
would increase the strength of the Society from
138 to 148.
(12). It is agreed that none of the members or
non-members will continue to prosecute any
proceedings against each other, including the
proceedings before the Financial Commissioner
regarding dual membership. In any case, it is
agreed that any pending proceedings or
complaints or Any other existing litigation
between the parties will stand
terminated/withdrawn. Similarly, any
proceedings or complaints made with any
authority either by the RCS or the new
administrator against Shri Onkar Singh will not
be prosecuted by such authority and will stand
terminated/withdrawn and in future also no
proceeding swill (sic) be initiated against him in
his capacity as the administrator of the Society.
This will subject to Sh.Onkar Singh handing
over the entire records to the present
Administrator.
10. All the proceedings stand disposed of."
10. Thereafter, another set of applications was filed before the
Division Bench, which were dismissed vide order dated 21st
January, 2011. While disposing of CM No. 20419/2010, prayer
made by the applicant that he should be allowed to stay in the
existing flat till the new flats were constructed on the ground
that order dated 28th July, 2010 was not a consent order was
rejected and the application was dismissed. However, the Court
noticing apprehension of the applicant that the Administrator
could go slow and there could be delay in process of
construction, had directed the Administrator to submit a report.
11. In the meanwhile, eighteen out of twenty two newly
inducted "members" whose membership was cancelled, had
approached the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to
Appeals, in which notice was issued. Interim relief was also
granted protecting dispossession of the appellants. Special
Leave to Appeals were dismissed vide order dated 3rd May,
2018 which reads:-
" Application for impleadment/intervention are allowed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for
interference is made out.
We are satisfied that the High Court has passed an
equitable order in favor of the petitioners in spite of their
being inducted as members, subsequently certain
directions have been issued for construction of flats and
thereafter to hand over to them.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, complete
justice has been done by the High court.
Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Senior counsel has
also raised a submission that in view of Rule 36(3) as the
order was not passed by the Registrar of the co-operative
Society within stipulated period he became functus
officio and could not have passed order reinducting the
member who were expelled by the society.
Learned Senior counsel has relied upon the
decision in " Balasinor Nagrik Cooperative Bank Ltd.
Vs. Babubhai Shankerlal Pandya and Others" (1987)1
SCC 606 in The Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act,
1961, in which Section 36(1) of Gujarat C0-operative
Society Act came for consideration of this Court. The
second proviso of said Section 36 laid down that in case
the order was not communicated within a period of three
months from the date of such submission and in the
absence of such communication, the resolution passed
by co-operative Society shall be effective. There is no
such provision in Rule 36 in question. It only provides
that within six months the Registrar shall decide the
dispute, however, there is no stipulation as to the
consequence as in Section 36 of the Gujarat Act.
In our opinion, not passing order within six months
would not invalidate the order passed after six months.
As such, no such consequence is provided in the Rule in
question. Thus, the decision relied upon cannot be said
to be of any application.
Apart from that, we are constraint to observe that
order of the High court is just and equitable the
petitioner has dragged this matter unnecessarily for the
last seven years.
In view of the aforesaid, the Special Leave
Petitions are dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed
of."
12. Referring to this order of the Supreme Court, counsel for
the petitioners, i.e. twenty two newly enrolled "members",
whose membership has been cancelled, has submitted that the
Supreme Court has recognized and accepted their enrolment as
"members" of the society. This is not correct. Supreme Court
has dismissed the SLP, and thus the judgment and order dated
3rd November, 2008 as modified by consent order dated 28th
July, 2010 stand affirmed. Contention of the petitioners,
appellants before the Supreme Court, relying upon Rule 36 (3)
to assert their right to membership for failure the Registrar to
decide on their admission within time, was specifically rejected.
13. It is therefore lucid and clear that the petitioners, whose
membership and enrolment was held illegal and contrary to law,
would have limited rights, which flow in terms of the orders
passed by the Division Bench dated 3rd November, 2008 read
with and as modified vide order dated 28th July, 2010. They
cannot claim any further or additional right. Unfortunately, for
the present petitioners, during the pendency of the litigation,
there has been a change of policy of the Delhi Development
Authority, vide notification dated 13th September, 2012 pursuant
to the decision of the Lieutenant Governor. New policy states
that utilization of additional FAR in group housing societies
shall be approved for construction of additional tower/block and
shall not be utilized for additional construction on the existing
structure, as this would compromise with the structure safety of
the existing building and risk living inhabitants. Society would
have to comply with and additional construction has to be as per
the Notification. To a large extent, the petitioners are
themselves responsible, as in-spite of favourable order dated 3rd
November, 2008 read with order dated 28th July, 2010, they are
continued with the litigation. This imprudence, was adversely
commented upon by the Supreme Court in their order dated 3 rd
May, 2018, observing that the High Court had done complete
justice and the applicants therein had dragged the matter
unnecessarily for last seven years.
14. The petitioners have now raised the plea and claim that as
per verification exercise undertaken by the
Registrar/Administrator, there are only fifty four genuine
members. We do not find any merit in the said contention. We
may note that pursuant to the directions issued by the High
Court for elections, verification exercise was undertaken by the
Registrar. In the said exercise, verification of fifty four
members has been ascertained and confirmed. This verification
exercise should not be confused with the issue of allotment of
flats as the verification exercise is for elections to be held today.
Allotment of flats was made on the basis of verification exercise
undertaken earlier. The plea that some of the original/initial
members have sold and transferred their flats is a separate
matter. This allegation would have to be examined on case to
case basis, to decide and adjudicate whether there was a transfer
and whether the said transfer would be illegal and contrary to
Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 and the applicable rules.
Members concern and the transferee in case of transfer would
have to be heard. This would take time.
15. Present writ petitions are an attempt to stall
implementation of the orders passed in 2008-2010. The plea
and reasons given cannot be a ground and pretext not to abide
by the orders of the Court passed in 2008-2010, after these
orders have been affirmed and upheld by the Supreme Court
vide decision dated 3rd May, 2018. Notably, the petitioners
herein could have raised all these grounds and issues before the
Supreme Court. In fact the respondents assert that the
petitioners herein did raise these grounds, including the
contention that 124 flats were constructed and, therefore, some
of the petitioners should be accommodated as is apparent from
the order dated 16th February, 2018 passed by the Supreme
Court.
16. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the
present writ petitions and the same are dismissed. It will be
duty of the Administrator to ensure compliance of the orders
passed by the High Court dated 3rd November, 2008 read with
and as modified vide order dated 28th July, 2010. The eviction
notice, if not complied with, should be complied with within a
period of 21 days, failing which coercive action would be taken
as per law. We may note that in terms of order dated 28th July,
2010, flats were to be vacated (see direction 5) and persons who
were given four months time to vacate the flat were to pay
demurrage charges @ Rs.10,000/- per month. These charges
have not been paid by the said occupants. We clarify that we
have not modified judgment and order dated 3rd November,
1999, read with order dated 28th July, 2000, albeit compliance
must be made to handover possession of flats to the twenty two
initial members.
17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ
petitions are dismissed, without any order as to costs. All
pending applications, including application for impleadment, are
accordingly disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
JULY 10, 2018
MR
