GEETA Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER GOVT. OF NCT DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having failed at all stages of the proceedings, the Appellants are before this Court impugning the order passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court whereby writ petition was filed challenging the order dtd. 15/12/1994 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Delhi was dismissed. The High Court upheld the order dtd. 23/3/1993 passed by the Joint Registrar(II), Cooperative Societies, Delhi whereby the membership of late husband of the appellant no.1 was expelled. It was on account of non-payment of dues for construction of flats and allotment thereof by the Nav Jagriti Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is a procedure prescribed in Rule 36 of the Delhi Cooperative Society Rules, 1973 for cancellation of membership of the society, which has not been followed in the case in hand. The amount shown to be recoverable from the late husband of appellant no.1 as Rs.1,72,990.00, was not due as there was some enhancement of the cost of the flats, which was not proper. The late husband of the appellant no.1 never refused to pay the amount due. Learned counsel referred to a meeting notice dtd. 4/3/1992 of the society in which a sum of Rs.1,33,920.00 was shown to be due against the late husband of appellant no.1. He further submitted that the notice issued by the society to late husband of appellant no.1 dtd. 9/2/1993 shows that he had already paid Rs.1,40,500.00 up to 31/1/1993 and in fact, there was nothing due.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by all the authorities under the Act. The orders were upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court recording the default of the appellants in paying the dues of the society. No interference is called for in the present appeal. He further submitted that an offer was made to late husband of appellant no.1 at the appellate stage for payment of the balance dues so that issue could be resolved. However, that opportunity was not availed of as late husband of appellant no.1 wanted to contest the litigation. He further submitted that a meeting of the society was held on 31/1/1995 and against the vacancy, new member was added. 40 flats were constructed against which 40 members are on roll, hence, at this stage, it is not possible to offer any flat to the appellants as she had failed to avail of the opportunity at the appropriate stage.