SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges his expulsion from the respondent No. 2 Cooperative Group Housing Society.

(2.) The facts of the case are that on account of the repeated defaults/failure of the petitioner in paying the installments due and the call monies payable, the respondent No. 2 society after complying with the due procedure expelled the petitioner from its membership as per the resolution of the General Body Meeting dated 22.2.1990. In pursuance to the provisions of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972, this resolution was sent to the Registrar for approval. Originally, the society claimed a deemed approval of the Registrar as no decision was taken by the Registrar within a period of six months of communication of the same in terms of Rule 36 of the Rules framed under the Act, however, during the pendency of the petition, the Registrar vide his order dated 12.8.1991 approved the expulsion of the petitioner besides various other members pursuant to the resolution of the General Body Meeting dated 22.2.1990. The Registrar, however, gave a last opportunity to all the defaulting members, including the petitioner to clear their dues in four weeks. The petitioner, in spite of the same, failed to clear the dues by 13.9.1991. This Court post 13.9.1991 by its order dated 23.9.1991 stayed the expulsion of the petitioner pursuant to the order of the Registrar, however, subsequently, on 21.10.1994, this Court ordered in case the petitioner pays the amount due to the society from the due date the calls were made with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, only then, would the court consider the matter further. The respondent No. 2 consequently issued its letter dated 24.10.1994 in which it gave breakup of the dues including interest and demanded a sum of 8,68,122/- from the petitioner. The petitioner however, deposited only a sum of 5,20,000/- in this Court on 28.11.1994. The petitioner claimed that he had already deposited 50,000/-. The petitioner, therefore, claimed to have deposited 5,70,000/-. A reference to the calculations as shown in the letter dated 24.10.1994 shows that the amount of 5,70,000/- was only the principal amount. Obviously, therefore, the petitioner in spite of repeated opportunities granted, first by the society, thereafter by the Registrar as per his order dated 12.8.1991 and then by the court as per its order dated 21.10.1994, did not pay the dues of the respondent No. 2 society.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner after arguing the case on behalf of the petitioner when was put the query that whether the amount due as per the order of this Court dated 21.10.1994 has been complied with or not, could not dispute the fact that the complete dues as claimed by the respondent No. 2 society vide its letter dated 24.10.1994 of 8,68,122/- was not deposited but only 5,20,000/- was deposited, and taking into account 50,000/- already deposited, a sum of 5,70,000/- was only deposited out of the demand of 8,68,122/-. The attitude of the petitioner therefore leaves a lot to be desired. This aspect has been commented upon by a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the same resolution dated 22.2.1990 of the respondent No. 2 society with respect to other members who were expelled. The decision of the Division Bench is reported as Satish Chandra and Anr. v. Registrar Cooperative,1993 2 AD(Del) 81. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are paras 4 to 7 and the same reads as under: