Full Text
Translation output
V- HIGH COURT OF DELHI WP(C)No.326/2012 C.P. DHARMESH Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.D. Sharma, Adv.
Through: Mr. B.D. Sharma, Adv.
VERSUS
THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES & ANR. Respondents
Through: Ms. Shawana Bari & Mr. Anas Tanwir, Advs. for Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Additional
Standing Counsel for the GNCTD.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv. for R-2.
Through: Ms. Shawana Bari & Mr. Anas Tanwir, Advs. for Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Additional
Standing Counsel for the GNCTD.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
18.03.2013 The present writ petition filed under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of
India seeks a direction against the Registrar, Co-operative Societies (for short 'RCS')/respondent No.l to hold an inquiry qua the allegations of siphoning of the funds contributed by the members for constmction of flats.
An Expert Committee is also sought to be set up for the purposes of determining the cost ofthe flats. The dispute inter se the petitioner member and the Society has had a chequered history and there has been prolonged litigation from the year 2000 onwards. The history of such prolonged litigation has been set out in the order dated 10.5.2010 passed in WP (C)
No.3287/2008 which was the last round oflitigation inter se the parties. It was noticed in the said judgementthat the issue ofsetting up ofan Expert
WP (C)No.326/2012 „ , Page 1 of3
2013:DHC:7731-DB "s -4 Committee has been pending consideration and, thus, the Division Bench opined that the solution lays in constituting an Expert Committee for determining the cost and issued directions to the RCS. On the Committee submitting a report the RCS was to look into the aspect whether any member has paid less amount and as to how much amount is to be paid and the interest levied thereon.
Despite the aforesaid order the Expert Committee did not come into being and that was the matter which was examined in the present writ petition. Ultimately the parties stated on 5.11.2012 that keeping in mind the cost of the Expert Committee it would be appropriate that an architect is appointed by this Court to carry out the necessary task at a fixed fee, which was so done. The report ofthe architect is now available.
We have been taken through the report of the architect. We may notice that as per the Society cost of the flat is ^"7,15,000.00. The report of the architect assesses the cost of construction at ?6,13,156.00 as against the
Society's having charged ^6,20,000.00 for the same. The Society has charged land cost at ^30,000.00 apart fiom the cost of electric sub-station at
?40,000.00.
We may notice that as per the report the cost for "other development costs" has been assessed at ^55,259.71, which does not include all aspects.
Under the heading 'Items not included in Plinth Area Rates' cost of HT substation, tube wells, pumps, etc. boundary walls, grills and gates have been set out in the report. It has also been opined by the architect that the cost ofsecurity grills has not been accounted for. If all these costs are added the cost as per the report ofthe architect would also be more or less the same as the cost assessed ofthe flat by the Society, ifnot higher.
WP (C)No.326/2012 „ .
Page 2 of3 > The result ofthe aforesaid is that unnecessarily a hue and cry has been made over the cost of the flat over a long period of time as it appears to be so as the petitioner has come into occupation without paying the full cost of the flat.
The result of the aforesaid is that the cost of the flat as determined by the Society cannot be doubted and consequently the Society is entitled to recover the balance ofunpaid cost with uiterest.
The writ petition being completely devoid of any merit is dismissed.
SANJAY^^HAN^UL, J.
MARCH 18,2013 INDERMEET KAUR, J. b 'nesh e_>-j i'.njii
WP (C) No.326/2012 Page 3 of3
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
18.03.2013 The present writ petition filed under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of
India seeks a direction against the Registrar, Co-operative Societies (for short 'RCS')/respondent No.l to hold an inquiry qua the allegations of siphoning of the funds contributed by the members for constmction of flats.
An Expert Committee is also sought to be set up for the purposes of determining the cost ofthe flats. The dispute inter se the petitioner member and the Society has had a chequered history and there has been prolonged litigation from the year 2000 onwards. The history of such prolonged litigation has been set out in the order dated 10.5.2010 passed in WP (C)
No.3287/2008 which was the last round oflitigation inter se the parties. It was noticed in the said judgementthat the issue ofsetting up ofan Expert
WP (C)No.326/2012 „ , Page 1 of3
2013:DHC:7731-DB "s -4 Committee has been pending consideration and, thus, the Division Bench opined that the solution lays in constituting an Expert Committee for determining the cost and issued directions to the RCS. On the Committee submitting a report the RCS was to look into the aspect whether any member has paid less amount and as to how much amount is to be paid and the interest levied thereon.
Despite the aforesaid order the Expert Committee did not come into being and that was the matter which was examined in the present writ petition. Ultimately the parties stated on 5.11.2012 that keeping in mind the cost of the Expert Committee it would be appropriate that an architect is appointed by this Court to carry out the necessary task at a fixed fee, which was so done. The report ofthe architect is now available.
We have been taken through the report of the architect. We may notice that as per the Society cost of the flat is ^"7,15,000.00. The report of the architect assesses the cost of construction at ?6,13,156.00 as against the
Society's having charged ^6,20,000.00 for the same. The Society has charged land cost at ^30,000.00 apart fiom the cost of electric sub-station at
?40,000.00.
We may notice that as per the report the cost for "other development costs" has been assessed at ^55,259.71, which does not include all aspects.
Under the heading 'Items not included in Plinth Area Rates' cost of HT substation, tube wells, pumps, etc. boundary walls, grills and gates have been set out in the report. It has also been opined by the architect that the cost ofsecurity grills has not been accounted for. If all these costs are added the cost as per the report ofthe architect would also be more or less the same as the cost assessed ofthe flat by the Society, ifnot higher.
WP (C)No.326/2012 „ .
Page 2 of3 > The result ofthe aforesaid is that unnecessarily a hue and cry has been made over the cost of the flat over a long period of time as it appears to be so as the petitioner has come into occupation without paying the full cost of the flat.
The result of the aforesaid is that the cost of the flat as determined by the Society cannot be doubted and consequently the Society is entitled to recover the balance ofunpaid cost with uiterest.
The writ petition being completely devoid of any merit is dismissed.
SANJAY^^HAN^UL, J.
MARCH 18,2013 INDERMEET KAUR, J. b 'nesh e_>-j i'.njii
WP (C) No.326/2012 Page 3 of3
JUDGMENT