NEERAJ JAIN Vs. THE REGISTRAR OF CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions seek common reliefs, i.e. a direction to the respondents to secure vacant physical possession of flats in illegal and unauthorized occupation in the Maitri Nagar Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Plot No.29, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-85 [hereafter the Society ] and directions to settle the seniority list for allotment of flats in the society.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the society had enrolled several members. It constructed flats upon the land allotted to it by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the purpose by the Registrar Cooperative Societies [hereafter the Registrar ]. On 10.08.1988, as on that point of time, there were 99 constructed flats in respect of which draw of lots was conducted for 69 flats. It is a matter of record that the Registrar did not conduct any other draw of lots in accordance with the prescribed or approved procedure. In the meanwhile, the Society had expelled about 22 members on various grounds. The provisions of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules ( the Rules ) compelled approval of the Registrar for such expulsion. Again, it is a matter of record that on 16.08.1994, after hearing the parties, the Society and the expelled members, the Registrar directed the expulsion as unjustified and, therefore, without authority of law. The Financial Commissioner upheld the order of the Registrar and dismissed the revision proceedings. The office bearers of the Society at that time thought it appropriate to challenge the order disapproving the expulsion and the order of the Financial Commissioner; accordingly, the Society filed W.P.(C) 2890/1995. Another writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) 5398/1997 was filed during the pendency of the society's writ petition by one Savitri Jain [hereafter Savitri ], who had succeeded before the Registrar and the Financial Commissioner.

(3.) These writ petitions were pending in the Court for a long time. In the meanwhile, several individuals were inducted by the Society as members and given possession of flats. The procedure adopted was contrary to the prescribed one in that the Registrar was not a party to the allotment. For a valid allotment, the Society has to furnish a list of eligible members that requires verification by the Registrar after which the draw of lots is conducted in the presence of the Registrar or his nominee in the Society's premises or other agreed premises and in the presence of the representative of the DDA. Flouting these norms, possession of 22 flats was given to the subsequently inducted members.