Delhi High Court
Ravindra Kumar Hajela vs Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 17 September, 2019
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8680/2019 and C.M. APPL. 35860/2019
RAVINDRA KUMAR HAJELA ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. K. S. Chauhan, Mr. Ravi Prakash
and Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, Advocates.
versus
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manoj Goel, Ms. Vibhuti Vasisth,
Mr. Wajech Shafiq and Ms.
Alemjungla, Advocates.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
ORDER
% 17.09.2019
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:
1. The challenge in the present petition is two-fold. The first is a challenge
to the expulsion of the Petitioner as member of Respondent No. 3, Nav
Bharat Times Apts. Group Housing Society (hereafter „Society‟). The other
prayer is to declare the elections to the Management Committee of
Respondent No. 3 Society to be illegal inasmuch as the Petitioner‟s name
was not included in the voters‟ list.
2. Preliminary objections have been raised by Respondent No. 3 Society in
the short counter-affidavit filed in response to the notice issued in the
present petition. It is pointed out that the Petitioner is in fact not a member
of the Society, and therefore, cannot maintain the present petition. More
importantly, it is stated that there is a statutory remedy available to the
Petitioner in terms of Sections 70 and 71 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies
Act, 2003 („Act‟), and therefore, the Court should decline to entertain the
present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is pointed out that
the Petitioner has already lodged a protest in writing with the Assistant
Registrar of Co-operative Societies and has approached this Court without
waiting for a response thereto.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that his expulsion from the
Society was illegal. He seeks to rely on Section 35 of the Act to contend that
the aforesaid elections were not held in accordance with law.
4. The Court finds that there is an alternative remedy provided under
Sections 70 and 71 of the Act enabling a challenge to an election of the
Management Committee. Under Section 70 (1) (b), any dispute concerning
the constitution, management, or the business of a cooperative society, other
than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its
committee against a paid employee, which includes a dispute between
members, past members or persons claiming through members and the co-
operative society, its committee or any officer, agent, employee or
liquidator, shall be referred to the Registrar for a decision and no Court shall
have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or any other proceedings in respect of
such disputes. Under Section 70 (2), the decision of the Registrar on the
question whether a dispute referred to him is a dispute touching on the
constitution, management, or the business of the cooperative society shall be
final and shall not be called in question in any Court.
5. In relation to a nearly identical question that arose in the context of
Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act 1959, a decision of
the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court declining to entertain
a writ petition challenging an election held therein was upheld by the
Supreme Court in Umesh Shivappa Ambi v. Angadi Shekara Basappa
(1998) 4 SCC 529. The Supreme Court observed as under:
"4. It is now well settled that once an election is over, the
aggrieved candidate will have to pursue his remedy in
accordance with the provisions of law and this (sic. High)
Court will not ordinarily interfere with the elections under
Article 226 of the Constitution. (See in this connection para 3
in K.K. Shrivastava v. Bhupendra Kumar Jain (1977) 2 SCC
494.) The Court will not ordinarily interfere where there is an
appropriate or equally efficacious remedy available,
particularly in relation to election disputes. In the present
case, under Section 70(2)(C) of the Karnataka Cooperative
Societies Act, 1959 any dispute arising in connection with the
election of a President, Vice-President, Chairman, Vice-
Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer or member of Committee of
the Society has be referred to the Registrar by raising a
dispute before him. The Registrar is required to decide this in
accordance with law."
6. The Court accordingly declines to entertain the present writ petition but
leaves it open to the Petitioner to seek appropriate remedies as provided for
in the Act in accordance with law. The Court clarifies that it has not
expressed any opinion on the objection raised by the Respondents regarding
the locus standi of the Petitioner as that is also a question which will be
decided by the Registrar.
7. The petition and application are dismissed in the above terms.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
TALWANT SINGH, J.
SEPTEMBER 17, 2019
pa
