Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: May 24, 2023
BHARAT JAGRITI COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Munjal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ankur Arora and Mr.Lokesh Kumar, Advocates and Mr. S. L.
Meena, Office Bearer Society.
Through: Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav and Mr.Yogesh Yadav, Advocates for
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. Satyakam, ASC with Ms. Pallavi Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA V. KAMESWAR RAO (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been primarily filed with the following prayers: “(i) Issue a Writ/ Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ/ Order or Direction for Quashing/ Setting aside the Order dated 04.06.2012 as passed by The Registrar Cooperative Societies in Case No. RCS/023/08/CND: and
(ii) Issue a Writ/ Order or Direction in the nature of
Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ/ Order or Direction for Quashing/ Setting aside the Order dated 06.09.2016 as passed by The Court of Financial Commissioner in Case No. 288/2012.”
2. The learned Financial Commissioner has in his order dated September 06, 2016, stated as under:
3. Mr. Rakesh Munjal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner Society, has referred to Page No. 81 of the paper-book which is a revision petition, filed by the Society before the Financial Commissioner, more specifically, grounds „B‟ and „D‟, which read as under:
(i) Whether there was any vacancy in the society and whether the procedure prescribed under Rule 24 of the DCS Rules, 1973 had been followed? (ii)Whether any application has been moved for enrollment by such person?
(iii) Whether the procedure prescribed under rule 30 of the DCS Rules has been followed?
(iv) Whether the procedure prescribed under rule 30 of the DCS Rules has been followed?
(v) Whether any communication was made by the society to the concerned person conveying him with regard to acceptance of his application for enrollment as member of the society?
(vi) Whether the society had ever demanded any money including any share money and admission fee?
(Vii) Whether the concerned person i.e. Late Shri Ram
(viii) Whether the said Shri Ram Singh Yadav had annexed any receipt or receipt towards admission fee or any other amount? In the instant case, the applicants/ respondent no.2 8,[3] have failed to produce any receipts of any payment on account of admission fee and share money and therefore, it cannot be held that Shri Ram Singh Yadav have ever been enrolled as Member of the society. xxxxxxx
4. According to him, learned Financial Commissioner, except stating that Society has failed to produce any document regarding reason for taking loan from late Sh. Ram Singh Yadav; resolution for accepting the loan; loan agreement or interest paid / due on the loan amount, has not dealt with the other grounds urged by the petitioner Society before the Financial Commissioner.
5. In other words, his submission is that the grounds in paragraphs „B‟ and „D‟ of the revision petition have not been dealt with. According to Mr. Rakesh Munjal, membership granted to Ms. Kavita Malhan was on the basis of her enrollment in terms of the application submitted by her on April 01, 2002, whereby she was issued a Share Certificate. She had also paid admission fee and share money. According to him, these aspects have not been considered by the learned Financial Commissioner.
6. We have heard Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who draws our attention to the receipts at page Nos. 405 & 408 for an amount of Rs.2,10,000/- and Rs.45,000/- respectively, which have been paid / deposited on January 06, 2001 and May 27, 2002 respectively, to contend that the deposits have been made as land money deposit, which surely depicts that the amounts deposited were for the membership of the Society.
7. We find from the impugned order that learned Financial Commissioner has not accepted the stand taken by the Society that the amount deposited was as a non-member. In any case, the grounds which have been urged by the petitioner Society have not been considered / dealt with by the learned Financial Commissioner.
8. Since, those grounds which have been urged would determine the membership aspect of late Sh. Ram Singh Yadav, from whom respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are claiming rights, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by learned Financial Commissioner and remand the matter back to the learned Financial Commissioner with further direction to decide the revision filed by the Society afresh after hearing the counsel for the parties within a period of two months from the date of first hearing, i.e. July 04, 2023, as an outer limit.
9. If, the Financial Commissioner is of the view that membership has to be granted to the predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, which shall result in the transfer of membership in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the Financial Commissioner shall also consider the manner in which the benefit thereof can be bestowed to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as it is the case of the petitioner Society that there is no flat/vacancy available.
10. It is made clear that all the contentions of the parties, both on facts and in law, are left open to be agitated before the learned Financial Commissioner.
11. Accordingly, we fix the date of hearing before the Financial Commissioner as July 04, 2023.
12. Petition stands disposed of.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J. MAY 24, 2023