Delhi High Court
Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta vs Roopvilla Cghs Ltd. And Ors. on 29 January, 2019
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 29.01.2019
% W.P.(C) 8992/2018
SH. VINOD KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bhavtosh Sharma with Mr.
Yogesh Verma, Advs.
Versus
ROOPVILLA CGHS LTD. AND ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Dhananjaya Mishra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition to assail the order
dated 15.05.2018 passed by the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal in Appeal No.
116/2013/DCT against the order dated 30.08.2013 passed by the Special
Registrar of Co-operative Societies. By the said order dated 30.08.2013, the
Registrar of Co-operative Societies had approved the expulsion of the
petitioner and one Sh. Ankit Saxena, who were expelled from the
membership of Roopvilla CGHS Ltd. under Rule 99 of the DCS Rules,
1999.
2. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, has dismissed the petitioner's
appeal against the said order passed by the Special Registrar.
3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly, is that
there was non-compliance of Rule 99(2) of the Delhi Co-operative Societies
Rules, 2007. Evidently, this submission was not even raised by the
petitioner before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Pertinently, the
order dated 30.08.2013 records that no procedural infirmity has been alleged
by the petitioner herein on the part of the society. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 99
requires the housing society to give final opportunity by publishing the
notice in the leading Hindi and English newspaper in the National Capital
Territory of Delhi before expelling a member, so as to inform him to remain
present in person, or through the authorised representative, before the
Registrar on the date fixed for final hearing.
4. It has been noticed by the Special Registrar, as well as by the Delhi
Co-operative Tribunal, that the petitioner had adequate notice of the
proceedings. He even participated in the proceedings in pursuance of the
notice that he had. Not having raised the aforesaid issue before the Special
Registrar or the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal, we cannot permit the
petitioner to raise the said issue at this stage since it involves disputed
questions of fact. In any event, the petitioner had notice of the proceedings
which is evident from the two orders dated 30.08.2013 and the order dated
15.05.2018 - impugned herein.
5. The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
allegation against the petitioner was, inter alia, with regard to the enrolment
of members in the Society unauthorisedly, and without complying with the
provisions of the law. The submission is that the membership of those
enrolled members had been upheld by the Registrar of Co-operative and
they have been made allotment of flats.
6. The Delhi Co-operative Tribunal, in the impugned order, has taken
note of the award passed by the Arbitrator in the cases pertaining to the said
enrolled members, relevant extracts of which have been set out in the
impugned order itself.
7. A perusal of the impugned order shows that so far as the petitioner is
concerned, his conduct as the President of the aforesaid co-operative society
was found to be illegal, and the enrolment of the said members was found to
be irregular. However, with a view to save the said members, who had
invested their monies for allotment of flats, their claims were allowed
subject to conditions - including payment of equalisation charges to the
Society in addition to Rs. 25,12,510/- till the date of possession of the flats.
The petitioner cannot seek to rely only on the fact that the membership of
those newly enrolled members was protected by the Arbitrator. Since he
places reliance on the Arbitral Award, he must also take with that
conclusion, all the observations made by the Arbitrator in the said award
which indicts him for his conduct.
8. The further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
contractor was in league with the members of the present management. The
contractor had applied his locks so that the records of the society are not
released to the managing committee. He submits that the petitioner had no
role to play in withholding of the records of the society. On this aspect as
well, we find that the Tribunal has extensively discussed the factual position.
As a matter of fact, the SDM, Najafgarh had to pass orders on 25.08.2011
pursuant to which the records were retrieved by the management of the
society.
9. The submissions now sought to be advanced by the petitioner, to the
contrary, are all factual. In judicial review, we are not called upon to
determine the questions of facts on which the Special Registrar and the
Delhi Co-operative Tribunal have already returned findings.
10. We find no merit in the present petition. Dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
JANUARY 29, 2019
N.Khanna
