MADHURKAR GUPTA Vs. REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/member of the respondent no.2 Cooperative Society is to the impugned order dated 19.9.2007 of the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal (DCT). By the impugned order dated 19.9.2007, the DCT accepted the appeal filed by the respondent no.2 herein challenging the original Award passed by the Arbitrator dated 12.3.2004. THE petitioner herein was the claimant in the arbitration proceedings and the petitioner claimed a category-I flat from the respondent no.2 society on payment of the demands of the society.

(2.) THOUGH the disputes between the parties have a chequered history, the most important aspect, which would be crucial to the disposal of the present petition is that the disputes as to expulsion of the petitioner from the respondent no.2 society has achieved finality by the order dated 11.9.2007 passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Society. By the order dated 11.9.2007, the plea of the society for approval of the expulsion of the petitioner for non-payment of dues was rejected. The effect of this order, and which has become final as the same has not been challenged by the society, is that the petitioner is a valid member of the respondent no.2 society.

(3.) THE issue is that what now follows. A clear picture has not emerged before us as to whether there is any category-I flat available for allotment to the petitioner. THE counsel for the respondent No.2 vainly tried to argue that the petitioner had agreed to take a category- II flat by his letter dated 11.12.1997 and therefore now cannot claim a category-I flat. We do not agree inasmuch as the petitioner had written a letter dated 11.12.1997 accepting a category-II flat in reply to the letter dated 21.10.1997 of the respondent No.2 society and whereby respondent No.2 society said that the vacancy was only available in a type-II category flat. THE letter of the petitioner dated 11.12.1997 shows that the petitioner insisted on a category-I flat and accepted the category-II flat only because apparently category-I flat was not available. We, therefore, find that the petitioner is entitled to a category-I flat if available, and failing which at least a category-II flat which is admittedly there in respondent No.2 society available for allotment and which has been reserved by the order dated 7.9.2009 of this Court.