C L WADHAWAN Vs. B M SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 26/11/2001 passed by a learned single Judge of this court whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein questioning the legality or validity of an order dated 22/08/2000 passed by the Arbitrator under Section 61 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 has been dismissed.

(2.) The respondents No. 1 and 2 are said to be elected members of the Managing Committee of Anand Niketan Cooperative Housing Society. The third respondent herein is a cooperative society registered under the said Act. The Annual General Meeting was held for election of the office bearers on 1 2/09/1997. The nomination paper of the respondent No.2, however, was rejected. He filed an application under Section 60 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 challenging the election held on 12/09/1999 and for quashing the result of the said election as also for a direction for holding fresh elections upon preparation of fresh voters list from the members of the housing society.

(3.) The main contention of the respondent No.2 was that the said election was not held in the manner as laid down in the Second Schedule appended to the said Act. On such an application being filed, the Registrar invited replies from the society which was only impleaded as a party and upon hearing it, by an order dated 21st December 1999, referrerred the dispute to the Arbitrator under Section 61 of the Act. The said order was passed by the Deputy Registrar and by reason of the said order, he referred the dispute appointing himself as Arbitrator. Upon an application filed by respondent No.3-society, for impleading 37 members who would be affected by any order passed by the petitioner, the same was allowed whereafter the respondent No.2 filed an amended petition under,Section 60 before the first respondent impleading the elected members. When the proceedings under Section 61 were already in progress, however, on an application made by the third respondent, the matter was transferred to Deputy Registrar-Arbitrator. The appellant as also the respondents 4 to 7 filed their written objections before the learned Arbitrator. By reason of the impugned order, it was held that the amendment application having already been allowed, the said order attained finality. It was further held that appellant and the respondents No. 4 to 7 were afforded opportunity to support their stand. It was further observed that appellant-respondents No. 4 to 7 had been afforded opportunity to study their case before his predecessor in office. The material portion of the said order reads thus: