SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applications have been filed for condonation of delay in filing the counter-affidavits. THE delay in filing the counter affidavits is condoned and the applications are allowed. W.P.(C) No.140/2009 and CM No. 301/2009 W.P.(C) No. 144/2009 and CM No. 305/2009 1. THE counter-affidavits filed by respondent No.2 were lying under objections which were called for from the Registry.

(2.) THE present two petitions are being disposed of by this common order because the facts are more or less similar and issues are identical. THE impugned order in both the writ petitions is also common. Reference is made to the facts in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 140/2009 for the sake of convenience.

(3.) THE relevant portion of the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal reads as under:- On careful consideration of the parties submissions and examination of the records of the lower court it appears to us that there is a lot of substance in the arguments of the society. So far as the question of issuance of notice at the correct address of the appellants is concerned it appears that the notice for both the members in the year 2001, 2002 and 2003 were issued mainly a the address of Flat No.88, Amba Apartments, which is presently being shown as the address of Ms. Maya Yadav. Some notices from this flat had also been received back unserved with the remarks that the flat was vacant. Some notices were issued to both of them at the address C-8/34, Sector 8, Rohini which appears to be the then address of Sh. Sandeep Kumar but no response was received even from this address. As regards Sh. Sandeep Kumar a number of addresses are available on record which includes flat No.88, Amba Apartments, as well as C8/34, Sector 8, Rohini. However, the copy of the ration card now produced by Sh. Sandeep Kumar shows the address as E-16/181, Sector 8, Rohini, whereas his present address is shown as E 17/21 Sector 8, Rohini. Interestingly, neither of the appellants has mentioned as to what address he/she had given to the society at the time of their enrollment. THEy have also not produced any evidence to show that any letter was written by them to the society intimating any change of address in their record. This fact gives credence to the societys allegation that they were enrolled by the then President/Contractor as benami members and they were very well aware of the progress of construction and societys demand but they had deliberately chosen not to make the payment to the society. Most probably the notices were also collected by somebody personally and that is why some of the notices have shown only the names and no addresses. With the change in the managing committee there was a change in behavior of all concerned. This is proved from the fact that between 1998 and 2005 the appellants never wrote a letter to society. It is also important to note that the society had as a last resort issued public notice in the newspapers and it is obvious that the society could not have done anything more in the matter. Taking an over all view of the case, we feel that there is no substance in the appeals of the appellants as they have failed to prove that the society has wrongly expelled them from its membership. We are therefore of the opinion that the Joint Registrars order dated 11.09.2007 which is a self-speaking/detailed order deserves to be confirmed. We order accordingly. In conclusion, the appeals are rejected and the Joint Registrars order dated 11.9.2007 is hereby confirmed. (Emphasis added)