Sadhna Chaudhary and Anr. v. Pradip Mehra and Ors.

1. The writ petition arises out of an order dated 26.07.2011 in Revision Petition filed by the petitioners impugning the order of the Financial Commissioner dismissing the writ petitions filed by the petitioners herein.

2. The Administrator of the R-3/Society had issued an advertisement in the newspaper on 02.10.2002, which reads as under: “It is hereby informed to the general public at large that a few vacancies are likely to arise in the J.N.C.H.B.S Ltd having its regd. Office at Jagriti Enclave, I.P.Extension-II, Delhi 110092 in view of this the desirous persons are requested to submit their application on plain paper through ordinary post at the registered office of the Society latest by 6th October, 2002. 2013:DHC:2454-DB Note: Any applications received after the due date shall not be entertained.”

3. The advertisement stipulated that the applications were to be submitted latest by 06.10.2002. The advertisement mentions that few vacancies were likely to occur in R-3/Society.

4. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioners are stated to have made an application on 02.08.2003. The application reads as under: “The Administrator Jagriti Nagar Coop House Building Society I.P.Extn. Part II, Road No.75B, New Delhi – 110092. Dear Sir, Respectfully I crave your kind indulgence for sympathetic consideration of my enclosed application for enrolment of member in your esteemed society in place of vacancies likely to occur in the future. May I kindly draw your kind attention that application for enrolment as a member of th society is to be entered/recorded in a register to be maintained under the Cooperative Law/rules. No date for entertaining application for membership against the likely vacancies in the future can be imposed arbitrarily. Therefore before declining my request for membership, it may kindly be noted that it shall be open to me to take legal recourse for appropriate action seeking relief from High Court and appropriate administrative authorities.”

5. We may note that the application itself states that the application is being made for enrolment of members in place of the vacancies likely to occur in the future.

6. The application of the petitioners for membership was not accepted by the Administrator vide order dated 14.10.2008. The Administrator held that since there were no vacancies in the Society and in terms of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kerala V. Kuttapan & Ors, the Administrator had no power for the enrolment of new members in the Society.

7. Since the petitioner was not successful, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 25 (3) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules against the order passed by the Administrator dated 14.10.2008.

8. Vide order dated 20.04.2009, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies dismissed the appeal of the petitioner thereby holding that the Administrator had (a) no power to advertise or fill up the vacancies and (b) the advertisement was given not in contemplation of any existing vacancies, but for future vacancies. The Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies held that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to by the Administrator was not applicable in the facts of the present case since that judgment related to enrolment under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. However, he noticed that even under the Rules as applicable to Delhi, the same position existed and the Administrator did not have the power to enrol new members.

9. Impugning the said order of the Joint Registrar, the petitioners filed a revision petition under Section 116 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act before the Financial Commissioner. The said revision petition has been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide the order dated 26.07.2012. The Financial Commissioner while dismissing the revision petition has held that a vacancy would become a vacancy only after the Society intimated the factum of such vacancy to the Commissioner further held that the advertisement of 02.10.2002