Full Text
W.P.(C) 6803/2015
Date ofJudgment: 29.09.2015 THE HOME LIVING COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY
LTD. & ORS Petitioner
Through : Mr. Aman Lekhi, Senior Advocatewith
Mr. Abhimanyu Mahajan, Mr. Milan Deep Singh and Ms. Anubha Goel, Advocates.
Mr. S. C. Dhawan, Advocate for Mr. S. K. Arora, Mr. B. Dahiya and
Mr. R. Girdhar, Applicants.
Through : Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, GNCTD for R-I.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL G. S. SISTANI. J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to quash the order dated 09.07.2015 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Delhi Cooperative Societies, New Delhi holding that there is no infirmity in the order dated 10.04.2015 passedby respondent no. 1. By the orderdated 10.04^2015, the respondent no. 1 appointed an Administrator and a Returning Officer to manage the day to day affairs of the society and conducting fresh elections of the Managing Committee ofthe Society.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner on the last date of hearing had submitted that the Society would have no objections in W.P. (C) 6803/2015 Page 1 of[3] 2015:DHC:11409-DB f conducting elections and would also not object in case an independent observer isappointed tooversee the entire elections procedure.
3. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 submits that the petitioners would have no locus standi to file the present writ petition on account of the fact that the respondent has reached the conclusion that no valid elections were held in the years 2009 and also in 2012. This submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that assuming without admitting that the submission of the respondent no. 1 is correct even then Section 39 of the Delhi Cooperative •4' Societies Act, 2003 provides that even in case of any procedural lapse would not invalidate the act of the Committee. At this stage, it is not ^ necessary to rule on this issue for the reason that this court is ofthe view that an independent observer should be appointed to overlook the entire election procedure.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no faith in the Administrator so appointed and has some apprehensions with regard to the Administrator who has been appointed as his request for allotment of a flat was declined which fact is disputed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1.
5. Mr. Lekhi submits that he would not oppose the appointment of an independent person and also suggests that a former Judge of this Court should be appointed as an Observer to overlook the conduct of the election as per the act.
6. Heard. Since, the main ground for appointment of an Administrator was not holding election by the Committee, allegation and counter allegation have been made. We are of the view that fair election should be conducted and at the earliest. In the facts of the case, it would be in the fitness of things to appoint a Retired Judge of this Court to oversee the election W.P.(C) 6803/2015 Page 2 of[3] process and conduct the election.
7. Justice Kailash Gambhir, a former Judge of this Court, (Mobile NO. 9871300033) is appointed as a Court Observer to overlook the conduct of the election as per the act. As agreed by the petitioner, the fee of the Observer is fixed at Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Thousand Only), which shall be paid by thepetitioner. It is further agreed that at the first instance the General Body Meeting would be called giving 21 days' notice and thereafter the election of the petitioner society would be,/ -, conducted within 60 days as per rules. Further, during the period of ^ holding ofelections, all statutory payments and other day-to-day payments shall be released with the consent of the Observer. It will be open for respondent no. I to appoint the Returning Officer who would work under the supervision of the observer. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.07.2015 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Delhi Cooperative Societies, New Delhi is set aside.
8. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms.
C. M. APPL. 12445/2015 (Stay)
9. In view ofthe order passed above, the present application is disposed of.
C. M. APPL. 19719/2015 (Impleadment)
10. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, we find no ground to entertain this application. The rights ofthe applicants are kept open. w r G.S.SISTANI, J SANGITAIITHING ^EHGAL, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2015 / sc