Delhi High Court
Kanwarjeet Singh vs Registrar Cooperative Societies ... on 24 March, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 24th March, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 11325/2021
KANWARJEET SINGH ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Ankur Arora, Advocate.
Versus
REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
& ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Anupam Srivastava, ASC
(GNCTD) and Mr.Vasuh Misra,
Advocate for R-1 and R-2.
Mr.Ashim Vachher, Standing Counsel
for DDA/R-3 with Mr.Kunal Lakra,
Advocate.
Mr.Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate
(proxy) for R-4.
Mr.Ajesh K. Chawla and Mr.Saket
Gautam, Advocates for impleader.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
1. Respondent No.4 i.e. the Society has been served through
ordinary process as per the service report dated 15th November, 2021.
However, till date, no reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent No.4.
Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA
GUPTA
Signing Date:25.03.2022
18:20:45
2. This present petition reveals the ordeal faced by the petitioner in
getting a flat allotted to him in Category-'A' despite being a member
of the Society.
3. The petitioner became a member of the respondent No.4/
Society in the year 2004 and till October, 2006, he deposited a sum of
₹26 lakhs with the Society towards costs of Category-'A' flat which
was the total cost of the said flat. Since the society did not allot a flat
to the petitioner, the petitioner filed an Arbitration claim under Section
70 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 (in short the 'DCS
Act') pursuant whereto an Award dated 25th September, 2014 was
passed in favour of the petitioner. As per the Award, the membership
of the petitioner and his entitlement for allotment of Category-'A' flat
was upheld and objections of the Society against the membership of
the petitioner were rejected. The Society filed an appeal against the
Award, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 15 th
May, 2017. The Society, thereafter, filed a Writ Petition (Civil)
No.14078/2018 against the Award and the order of the learned
Tribunal, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28th
December, 2018. Despite the Award having attained finality, the
respondent No.4/Society has managed to not implement the Award till
date.
4. The petitioner filed an application under Section 105 of the
DCS Act before respondent No.2 i.e. the Assistant Collector, Office of
the Registrar Co-operative Societies for execution of the Award dated
25th September, 2014. However, till date the petitioner has not been
Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA
GUPTA
Signing Date:25.03.2022
18:20:45
allotted and given possession of the flat as per the Award.
5. It may be noted that the petitioner and one Smt. Anita Gupta
had enrolled as members of the respondent No.4/ Society on 12 th June,
2004 against the vacancies of two persons, namely, Rakesh Bajaj and
Bipin Bajaj, who had filed various litigations before this Court, which
finally culminated in Writ Petition (Civil) No.262/2019 and 291/2019,
which were dismissed with costs of ₹1 lakh vide the order dated 14 th
January, 2019, which reads as under:
"1. These two petitions have been preferred by two
brothers.
2. Before we proceed further, we may observe that on
our perusal of these petitions, they, prima facie, appeared
to be have been filed as an abuse of the process of the
Court. Therefore, at the outset, we gave liberty to the
petitioners to withdraw the same. We had made it clear to
the petitioners that, in case, after hearing the submissions,
we do not find any merit in the petitions, we would be
inclined to subject them to costs for abusing the process of
Court and wasting the time of the Court. Despite the
aforesaid position, the petitioners have chosen to press the
petitions and taken valuable time of this Court in pressing
the same.
3. The petitioners, it appears were members of the
respondent No.2- Skylark Cooperative Group Housing
Society Ltd. Their respective membership was sought to be
seized on 03.06.1998 with the approval of the Registrar of
Cooperative Societies. The petitioners Revision Petition
was dismissed by the Ld. Financial Commissioner on
16.09.2008. This Court dismissed the petitioners writ
petitions i.e., W.P.(C) Nos. 8124/2008 and 8125/2008 on
23.04.2010. That decision to seize the memberships of the
petitioners was affirmed by the Supreme Court with the
dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions i.e., SLP (C) No.
Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA
GUPTA
Signing Date:25.03.2022
18:20:45
17582/2010 & SLP (C) No. 17458/2010 preferred by the
petitioners. Consequent upon the seizure of the
memberships of the petitioners, since they were out of the
respondent No.2 Society, it appears that respondent No.3
was enrolled as one of the members.
4. It appears that certain disputes arose between
respondent No.2 Society and respondent No.3-Mr.
Kanwarjeet Singh, which were referred to Arbitration.
Even though, the petitioners had no concern with the said
arbitration-since they were already out of the picture after
their memberships in the respondent No.2 Society was
seized, they sought to interdict the Arbitration by seeking
impleadment in the two appeals preferred by the
respondent No.2 Society i.e., Appeal No. 153/2014/DCT
and Appeal No. 169/2014/DCT. These appeals were
preferred against the reference of the claim of Respondent
No.3 to Arbitration. They were dismissed vide orders dated
16.01.2017 and 06.02.2017 respectively.
5. The Arbitration proceeded, wherein the Award dated
25.09.2014 was rendered in favour of the respondent No.3.
The Arbitral Tribunal held, that respondent No.3 was
entitled to a Category „A‟ flat in the Society.
6. Respondent No.3 sought to execute the Award and, at
that stage, the petitioners again tried to interfere in the
proceedings by moving an application for impleadment.
The said application was dismissed on 06.12.2018.
Consequently, at this stage, after passage of over four
years from the date of the Award, the petitioners have
preferred these petitions to challenge the Award dated
25.09.2014 passed by the learned Tribunal in favour of the
respondent No.3. The induction of respondent No.3 as a
member of the respondent-Cooperative Society is also
under challenge. The petitioners also assail the order
dated 06.12.2018, whereby the petitioners endeavoure to
intervene in the execution proceedings, has been rejected.
7. From the aforesaid narration itself, it would be evident
that the petitioners are incorrigible. Their memberships
Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA
GUPTA
Signing Date:25.03.2022
18:20:45
have been seized, upon their expulsion from the respondent
no.2-Society, as aforesaid, decades ago. The said issue has
attained finality. Thus, they are no longer members of the
respondent No.2 Society. Yet, they continued to
intermeddle in the affairs of the respondent No.2 Society
and in the affairs of the members who were enrolled upon
the seizure of their membership. The petitioners have
absolutely no locus standi in the matter. The submission of
learned counsel for the petitioners is that one appeal
(Appeal No. 110/2018) preferred by the petitioners against
the order refusing appointment of Arbitrator is pending
before Hon‟ble DCT. The same has absolutely no bearing
on the present case. In any event, since the petitioners‟
memberships stand seized and the said aspect has attained
closure, we fail to appreciate as to how any such appeal
can survive.
8. In the circumstances, we dismiss the present petitions
with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- upon each of the petitioners.
The costs shall be deposited with the Prime Minister‟s
Natural Disaster Relief Fund. In case the costs are not
deposited by the petitioners, they shall remain personally
present in Court.
9. Petitions stand dismissed.
10. List on 18.02.2019 for reporting compliance."
6. A perusal of the order dated 14th January, 2019 and the facts
noted above show the manner in which both the respondent No.4/
Society and its erstwhile members, whose memberships were
cancelled, harassed the petitioner. The ordeal of the petitioner did not
end here. Though Smt. Anita Gupta, who was awarded the
membership of the Society on the same date was issued a demand
notice seeking a sum of ₹27,79,230/- payable as on 31st March, 2005
and was allotted Category-'A' flat, however, in case of the petitioner,
Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA
GUPTA
Signing Date:25.03.2022
18:20:45
the Society raised the demand at the present Circle Rates and vide its
letter dated 17th August, 2019 raised an outstanding demand of
₹84,52,002/- towards construction/ land money dues against the flat;
₹5,78,093/- towards maintenance charges and electricity charges/
common charges due along with interest applicable on the flat, which
could have been charged only if the possession of the flat was given to
the petitioner; an outstanding of ₹98,332/- against various demands
raised by the society for Capex along with the applicable interest
against the flat, which demand also could have been raised after the
flat was allotted; as also an outstanding demand of ₹2,20,960/- against
the demand raised by the society for ground rent/vacant tax which
outstanding amount, the petitioner agreed to pay.
7. Since the petitioner failed to pay the outstanding amounts, as
noted above, the Society did not take steps under Schedule 7 of the
RCS Rules to forward the claim of the petitioner to the RCS, who on
satisfaction would have put up the matter to the Committee under
Rule 90 of the RCS Rules, which Committee would have then directed
the DDA to allot the flat.
8. It is, thus, evident that by raising exorbitant demands, the
respondent No.4 scuttled the Award which was passed in favour of the
petitioner. Despite the petitioner submitting a reply also noting the
discrimination caused to the petitioner, vis-a-vis similarly placed
member - Smt.Anita Gupta and also making a representation to the
RCS reporting non-compliance of the Award and the discrimination
caused by the malafide action of the respondent No.4 in its
Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA
GUPTA
Signing Date:25.03.2022
18:20:45
submissions dated 19th September, 2019, it is evident that till date the
RCS shut its eyes on the malafide harassment caused to the petitioner
and neither took any action against the respondent No.4/ Society nor
took steps to get the flat in the Category-'A' allotted to the petitioner.
9. The demand raised by the Society as noted above is clearly
discriminatory, malafide and unfair and in case, the petitioner shows
the proof of demands as raised from Smt.Anita Gupta, the RCS will
ensure to implement the Award. The writ petition is disposed of with
the directions that Registrar, Co-operative Societies will take
immediate action against the respondent No.4/Society for malafidely
denying the allotment of flat to the petitioner as also take actions for
allotment of flat in the Category-'A' to the petitioner, which process
should be completed within a period of three months from today.
10. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
CM APPL. 34884/2021 (filed by petitioner to direct respondents to
allot and handover possession of Category-'A' flat to petitioner)
CM APPL. 3647/2022 (to implead applicants as respondent Nos.5, 6
filed by the applicants)
1. In view of the orders passed in the writ petition, the applications
are disposed of as infructuous.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
MARCH 24, 2022/PB
Signed By:JUSTICE MUKTA
GUPTA
Signing Date:25.03.2022
18:20:45
