P L GUPTA Vs. REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Munjal has contended that respondent Nos. 3,4 & 5 were ineligible for allotment of plot of land in the respondent No. 2 society. The first submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that in terms of bye-laws of the society, respondent Nos. 3,4 & 5 had incurred disqualification. Bye-law 5(i)(a) of the society is to the following effect:

(2.) It was contended before us that respondent Nos. 3,4 & 5 were the employees of the CSIR, however, their shares could be transferred to those who were CSIR employees and respondent Nos. 6 to 9 were not the employees of CSIR. Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 are the sons of respondent Nos. 3 & 4 and respondent Nos. 8 & 9 are the sons of respondent No. 5. In this connection reliance has been placed on Bye-law 8(viii):

(3.) Yet another contention has been raised by Mr. Munjal that even otherwise respondent No. 3-K.N. Johri acquired Flat No. 37 (SFS), Hauz Khas, New Delhi on 11.11. 1982. The specific draw of flat by DDA was held on 20.9.1982 and allotment was confirmed on 11.11.1982, whereas said Shri K.N. Johri made a request for transfer of membership in favour of Sanjiv Johri (respondent No. 6) only on 30.12.1982. That means when a flat was allotted in favour of Shri K.N. Johri by the DDA, he had requested respondent No. 2 for transfer of membership in favour of his son (respondent No. 6). Therefore, at the time when the application for transfer had been made, Shri K.N. Johri stood disqualified to be member in terms of Rule 25 of the Co-operative Society Rules.