M L JETLEY Vs. REGD COOPERATIVE SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ail these petitions raise connected issues and are being disposed of by this common order. Respondent society (Milan Vihar Cooperative House Building Society) was formed way back in 1979 and was initially allotted land by DDA for construction of 399 flats. Petitioners claim to have become its members from time to time. They allege that General Body Meeting (GBM) of the society was held on 8.3.1992 in which it was resolved that a premium ranging from Rs.1 to 2 lacs would be charged from the members, besides the normal charge. This resolution was followed in case of three new members enrolled by R-4, the then President of the society but this resolution was thereafter given a go by the new Managing Committee of the society elected on 15.1.1994 which enrolled 35 new members without charging them the equalisation fee as per the resolution. Thereafter fresh elections were held on 15.10.1995 and newly elected committee again enrolled 80 new members in similar fashion and in violation of GBM resolution dated 8.3.1992.

(2.) Petitioners' further case is that they approached respondent No.1 in this regard by various representations contending that enrollment of members after serial No.587 was void and violative of this resolution but the Managing Committee manoeuvred to regularise their membership and for that convened GBM on 29.12.1996. So much so that Registrar had also initiated action under Section 32 against the Society. Petitioners claim that enrollment of new members from serial No.587 onwards was gross violation of the GBM resolution dated 8.3.1992 and discriminative as some of them were charged under the first resolution and others were let off. They pray that respondent No.1 be directed to declare membership of all those members from serial No.587 onwards invalid and R4-5 be directed to comply with GBM resolution dated 8.3.1992 and R-4 be restrained from holding any meeting dated 29.12.1996.

(3.) R-5 has filed a brief affidavit challenging the maintainability of this petition for raising disputed questions of fact and for non-joinder and misjoinder of parties and so on. It is denied that GBM held on 8.3.1992 had decided to charge premium from different categories of members or that any new member was enrolled in violation of that decision or any provisions of the Act and Rules. On the contrary, all members were rnrolled by the Managing Committee under bye-law 5 and, therefore, all of them were bonafide members. It is also denied that GBM called on 29.12.1996 was so called with ulterior motive or that membership after serial No.587 was void or illegal on any count. On the contrary, all such members had participated in the elections in which petitioners had also contested but Lost. It is also submitted that R-1 (Registrar) was apprised of the position of enrollment of members from time to time and no objection at any stage was raised by him which shows that he had approved of the action of the Managing Committee.