KESAR SINGH Vs. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Writ Petition, the prtilioner calls questtion the letter of the Deputy Registrar (INDI.) Cooperative Societies, Delhi Adminitration, Delhi adated October 5, 1988 requiring execution of a fresli sublese of Plol No. H-12, Udyog Nagar, Delhi and the consequential letler of the Adminisirator of the respondent No. 3, the Manufactures' Cooperative Industrial Estate Limited, dated january 11, 1989 whereby the petitioner has been asked to sign a fresh/supplementary sub lease of the plol.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the writ petition are as under : On May 31, 1963 the petitioner applied tor the membership of the respondent No. 3, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act,1860, which was formed for the purpose of acquiring land for industrial purposes and paid a sum of Rs.10.00 as admission fee, Rs.1100.00 as value of one share and Rs.3000.00 as earnest money for the land (See Annexure P-3 collectively). On July 1, 1965 the petitioner was admitted as a member of the society. He also made payments on various dates for allotment of the industrial plot and secured receipts therefore from respondent No. 3. Eventually on March 7, 1979 a perpetual sublease in respect of Plot No. H-12, Udyog a Nagar, Delhi was executed by the President of India through Respondent No. 3 in favour of " Shri Kesar Singh son of Shri Arjun Singh, M/s. Kesar Singh Rawel Singh, Shop No. W-85, Delhi Development Authority Market, Mayapuri, New Delhi." It is not disputed that the original sub lease was signed by the petitioner alone. However, subsequently by letter dated October 5, 1988 issued by the office of respondent No. 2, the Deputy Director, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi was intimated, that as per the information provided by the Administrator of the Manufacturers' Co-operative Industrial Estate Ltd. and subsequent verification by the department, Plot No. H-12, Udyog Nagar, Delhi was required to be allotted to M/s. Kesar Singh Rawel Singh with partners namely Kesar Singh and Rawel Singh, who also happened to be brothers. The letter of the respondent No. 2 also required the execution of a sub lease in the name of M/s. Kesar Singh Rawel Singh with partners Kesar Singh and Rawel Singh. A copy of this letter was endorsed to the respondent No. 3 for doing the needful. Besides the copies of the same were sent to the petitioner and respondent No. 5. The petitioner thereupon sent a representation/notice dated November 21, 1988 against the aforesaid direction to the respondent No. 2 and respondents 1, 3 and 4. It appears that on receipt of the direction from the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 3 asked the petitioner by its letter dated January 11, 1989 to sign the supplementary deed and for this purpose directed him to report on January 17, 1989 at its site office. It is this action of the respondents 2 and 3 which has been impugned before us in the writ petition and for which show cause notice was issued to the respondents.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submilted that allotment having once been made in favour of the petitioner could not be changed. He further submitted that it was the petitioner who had made all the payments from his own funds to the respondent No.3 for securing the allotment of the plot and no money was deposited by him on behalf of the partnership. It was contended that the partnership stood dissolved with effect from March 31, 1968 and the petitioner had been conducting the business as proprietor of his firm. He also claimed that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to have his say in the matter before the respondents 2 and 3 took the impugned action