PARVEEN KUMAR Vs. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the impugned orders dated 12.12.2008 and 13.11.1992 of the Financial Commissioner and the Joint Registrar respectively, acting under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972. The limited relief which is pressed for by the petitioner in the present case is that extension of time be given to the petitioner to deposit the minor balance amount of Rs. 11,342/- which the petitioner could not deposit within the prescribed period of one month as granted by the Joint Registrar vide his order dated 13.11.1992.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner being a defaulter in the payment of dues, the respondent No. 2 society initiated proceedings for expulsion and which culminated in the proceedings before the Joint Registrar for confirmation of the expulsion proceedings against the petitioner. The Registrar passed the following order in this case.

(3.) The petitioner, however, suffered from a paralytic attack during this period and although the cheques of Rs. 69,000/- out of Rs. 77,000/-were cleared in terms of the order passed by the Joint Registrar, one cheque of Rs. 8000/- bounced and the petitioner also failed to pay the remaining balance amount of Rs. 3,342/-. The order of the Joint Registrar was passed on 13.11.1992 and the petitioner was to pay the amount of Rs. 3,342/- by 31st December, 1992. On account of the ill health of the petitioner which has resulted in a paralytic stroke, the petitioner did not deposit the amount by 31st December 1992 but prepared a bank draft for Rs. 11,342/- on 11.3.1993 for payment, i.e. roughly after about two and a half months. Accordingly, Counsel for the petitioner has contended that on account of the personal difficulty of the petitioner inasmuch as he had suffered a paralytic attack, condonation of delay and/or extension of time be granted for deposit of the minor balance amount of Rs. 11,342/-. It is contended that if delay is not condoned grave and irreparable injury will be caused to the petitioner, who has otherwise paid the entire amount and would be deprived of the flat. The Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the averments in the petition that the wife of the petitioner also had fallen from the roof and broken both her legs and consequently, a major surgery had to perform on the wife of the petitioner, though of course in a later period.