Order of DHC dt. 22.8.2007 & 30.08.2007 & 24.09.2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DATE OF DECISION: 24th September,
2007
W.P.(C) 155/2007 and CM Nos.285/2007 (stay) and 10475/2007

KHATTAR CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING
SOCIETY LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vinay Gupta, Advocate

versus
REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL


HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

JUDGMENT
24.09.2007

: MUKUL MUDGAL, J. (Oral)
1. Rule DB. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petition
is taken up for final hearing.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the
following relief:
?(i) pass necessary orders, directions or writ more so in the nature of
writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.12.2006 in case
No.RCS/F.1374/CGHS/NE/06/2833-2838 emerging from the Show Cause Notice being
No.F.1374/CGHS/NE/2006/99 dated 12.6.2006 purporting to be a Show Cause Notice
under Section 37 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003, the said notice
as well as the order made pursuant thereto being illegal and unsustainable.?
3. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that subsequent to the
impugned order dated 19.12.2006 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
this Court has delivered a judgment in Rajib Mukhopadhyaya's case, being W.P.
(C) No.1403-14/2006. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that in view
of the law laid down in the said judgment, the issue involved in the present
writ petition stands fully covered by the said judgment and in particular
reliance has been placed on paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said judgment, which
read as follows:
?12. Consequently, we uphold the constitutional validity of Rule 24(2) of
the DCS Rules subject to the above interpretation of the law submitted by the
learned Additional Solicitor General, which we accept and declare. The bye laws
of the Society shall be fully followed in entertaining the claims of memberships
set up by those applying through the medium of Rule 24(2) of the DCS Rules.
Thus, if the society has any existing requirements in its bye laws about the
characteristics required to be possessed by an intending member, only such
persons possessing the requirements as stipulated in the existing bye laws and
regulations of the Society are entitled to apply pursuant to Rule 24(2) of the
DCS Rules. We also make it clear that if the Society has any existing members
who have still not got the allotment of a plot/flat, such members, in accordance
with the bye laws, shall be first allotted the vacant plot/flat/premises before
resort to Rule 24(2) of the DCS Rules. It is only when all such existing
members awaiting allotment have been allotted the premises/plot/flats, shall the
operation of Rule 24(2) of the DCS Rules come into being.
13. Consequently, while dispelling the challenge to the constitutional
validity of Rule 24(2) of the DCS Rules, we nevertheless uphold the societies
right to restrict its membership in accordance with the bye-laws, regulations
and the rules of the society prospective candidates and further make it clear
that any prospective entrant to a society, pursuant to the mandate of Rule 24(2)
of the DCS Rules shall only be eligible to be allotted a plot after the
requirements of the existing members are fulfilled.?
4. However, since in view of the provisions of the Delhi Co-operative
Societies Act, an appeal against the Registrar's order is maintainable under
Section 112 of the said Act, the petitioner is directed to file an appeal
against the impugned order of the Registrar dated 19.12.2006 under Section 112
and the said appeal shall be disposed of on merits by the Tribunal by applying
the law laid down in Rajib Mukhopadhyaya's case and in particular paragraphs 12


and 13 extracted above. The appeal shall be filed not later than four weeks
from today. The said appeal, if filed not later than four weeks from today,
shall be disposed of on or before 31st December, 2007 in accordance with the law
as declared above. During the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, the
impugned order dated 19.12.2006 shall remain stayed.
5. W.P.(C) 155/2007 and CM Nos.285/2007 and 10475/2007 stand disposed of
accordingly.
Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the petitioner as
prayed.


MUKUL MUDGAL,J


REVA KHETRAPAL, J
SEPTEMBER 24, 2007
km


------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 1064/2007

ANJUMAN COOP.GRP.HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Bansal, Advocate


versus


REGISTRAR OF COOP.SOCIETIES and ORS. .....
Respondents
Through:Ms. Sujata Kashyap, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for R-2.
Mr. Harish Gulati, Standing Counsel for
CBI/Res.
Mr. S.M. Chopra, Court Commissioner.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL


O R D E R
22.08.2007

On 5th July, 2007, certain orders were passed in this matter about the
resolution of the dispute of an early allotment sought by the members, who were
not involved in any wrong doing. This order was passed by the Bench of Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Manmohan Sarin and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudershan Kumar Mishra.
Thereafter, on 11th July, 2007, further orders were passed, inter alia,
appointing Mr. S.M. Chopra, former Additional District and Sessions Judge as an
amicus curiae to assist the Court and his fees was tentatively fixed at
Rs.25,000/-, subject to further orders, to be paid by Delhi Legal Services
Authority. Delhi Legal Services Authority is directed to ensure that the order
of 11th July, 2007 is complied with not later than 15th September, 2007. Mr.


Bansal, counsel for the petitioner states that his clients are willing to bear
the further payment to Mr. Chopra, amicus curiae.
There were further orders passed on 18th July, 2007, 23rd July, 2007,
25th July, 2007 and 26th July, 2007 making substantial progress in the
resolution of the dispute by the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Sarin and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudershan Kumar Mishra. The newspaper publication has been
done.
We are of the view that since the matter has been substantially dealt
with by the Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Sarin and Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Sudershan Kumar Mishra leading to the possibility of resolution of the dispute
at an early date, it is appropriate that the matter be heard by the Bench of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Sarin and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudershan Kumar
Mishra on 30th August, 2007, subject to the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

MUKUL MUDGAL,J


REVA KHETRAPAL, J
AUGUST 22, 2007
km



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

30.08.2007

Present: Mr.Sumit Bansal with Mr.Manish Paliwal for the petitioner.
Ms.Sujata Kashyap for respondent no.1-RCS.
Mr.Rajiv Bansal for respondent no.2-DDA.
Mr.Harish Gulati with Mr.Rohit Sharma for respondent no.3-
CBI.
Mr.S.M.Chopra, Amicus Curiae.


WP(C) 1064/2007


We may notice that the Division Bench of Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mukul Mudgal
and Hon'ble Ms.Justice Reva Kheterpal vide orders dated 22nd August, 2007 has
directed the Delhi Legal Services Authority to ensure that order dated 11th
July, 2007 for payment of fee of the Amicus Curiae Mr.S.M.Chopra which had been
tentatively fixed as Rs.25000/- is complied with latest by 15th September, 2007.
Mr.Chopra states that payment has still not received. We hope and trust that


Delhi Legal Services Authority would comply with the said order before the date
fixed by the Division Bench.
We have perused the interim report given by the Amicus Curiae and in
particular his recommendation at para 9(a) to (d).
Mr.Sumit Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has
given the list of members comprising 64 resignations as mentioned in para 9(b)
with complete addresses and would also supply a list of 120 original members.
The Amicus Curiae will reconcile the list which would include consideration of
objections to certain members as pointed out by the learned counsel for CBI in
respect of 120 original members. Petitioner's counsel will make available
to the Amicus Curiae for despatch the necessary envelopes duly addressed and
stamped along with the required copies of the public notice. The Amicus
Curiae shall ensure the despatch thereof. Public notices shall be despatched
with covering letters from the Amicus Curiae to the effect that under directions
from the court notice as published in the Times of India dated 4th August, 2007
is being sent by Certificate of Posting and any objection or response thereto
may be sent to Mr.Gopal Krishan Sharma, Deputy Registrar (Writs), High Court of
Delhi within 10 days from the date notices are dispatched. This step is being
taken by way of abundant caution to avoid any objection at any subsequent stage.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner society would bear
the liability for any further fee of the Amicus Curiae.
Response to the interim report of the Amicus Curiae may be filed by the
Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the CBI, as desired by them before the next
date.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that they have applied for
grant of Occupancy Certificate in respect of Plot no.20, Sector-12, Dwarka,
Delhi vide their application dated 27th December, 2005 and deposited the
necessary charges. Respondent-DDA may process the application without
prejudice to the pending proceedings and/or investigation. Any further
requirement to be complied with by the petitioner-society or deficiency may be
intimated to it. If the respondent-DDA finds the application in order, and
after the required inspection finds that petitioner is entitled to grant of
occupancy certificate, it may issue the same provisionally and subject to the
outcome of the writ petition and deposit the same in court. Learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that petitioner-society is willing to pay the
requisite charges for time extension. Let this be done within three weeks.
Renotify on 4th October, 2007.
Copy of the order be given Dasti to counsel for the parties under the
signature of the Court Master.


Manmohan Sarin, J.


Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.
August 30, 2007


Thanks & regards.
Dilip Kumar
9818969908

Labels: