PRABHAT KRISHNA Vs. LT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Shri Prabhat Krishna ('the petitioner' for short) through the present petition has challenged the order dated October 30,1989 passed by the Lt. Governor, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. I for the sake of brevity). He further wants that a direction be issued to respondent No.3 to enrol him as a member of the Anamika Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd., D-2/3, 14, Rajpur Road, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as. the Society for the sake of convenience) over and above the respondents No. 4 to 7 w.e.f. July 4,1988 with all benefits and privileges which were available to him on the said date.

(2.) In short, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner herein applied on a plain paper for being enrolled as a member of the Society on July 28,1988 as is manifest from the endorsement on the application. Respondent No.3 asked the petitioner vide letter dated August 1,1988 to move anapplication on the prescribed form. Subsequently through letter dated August 16,1988 the petitioner was apprised of the fact that the question of membership would be decided by draw of lots on September 4,1988 at 10.00 a.m. and they would be required to deposit a specified amount with the Society. The petitioner thereupon d eputed his sister Dr. Madhur Kudesia to represent him at the time of the draw of lots of the membership of the Society. Out of the 17 eligible applicants the petitioner was declared successful and his name was shown in the list at Sr. No.1. The sister of the petitioner was further informed on the said date that a sum of Rs. 27,533.42 was to be deposited by the petitioner within three days with the respondent No.3 by September 7,1988 at 8.00 a.m. Since the petitioner was posted at Lucknow on the said date as an Executive Engineer with the Ministry of Surface Transport, Government of India, he was informed by his sister at Lucknow to make arrangement for the deposit of the said amount. He arranged the said amount and rushed to Delhi on September 7,1988 with a bank draft for Rs.27,000.00 dated September 6,1988 in favour of respondent No.3 payable at State Bank of India, Delhi. The petitioner was having besides the said draft a sum of Rs. 533.75 in cash to pay to the Society. The petitioner along with his sister Dr. Madhur Kudesia who was putting up at the second floor which is just below the office of the Society approached the Scretary of the Soceity, Dr. V.K. Gupta, at 8.00 a.m. Dr.Gupta informed the petitioner that since he was going to the hospital at that time he would meet him in the evening and accept the draft. Consequently on hearing the same the petitioner left for his office. The petitioner returned from his office at 7.00 p.m. and approached again Dr. V.K.Gupta along with his sister in the office of the Society and tendered the draft. Dr. Gupta did not accept the said draft and put off the matter on the pretext that the same should be accompanied by anaffidavit. The proforma of the affidavit was made available to the petitioner only at 7.00 p.m. on September 7,1988. The petitioner on September 8,1988 got the affidavit prepared and attested and thereafter tendered the same over again with the bank draft. However, Dr.V.K.Gupta again declined to accept the bank draft on the ground that-his case would be referred to the Executive Committee of the Society on September 9,1988 and the petitioner can put forward his case over there. The petitioner appeared before the Executive Committee on the aforesaid date. The Executive Committee rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that no payment was made. The said action on the part of the Executive Committee and that of the Secretary was mala fide and motivated and pre-planned as they wanted to allot the membership of the Society to certain other persons namely, respondents Nos. 4 and 5.

(3.) The petitioner being aggrieved with the same approached the Registrar, Co-operative Societies with representations (vide Annexures 7 & 8). The Registrar accepted the said representation and issued directions to respondent No.3 that the petitioner be allotted membership and the afore-mentioned draft be accepted (vide Annexures 9 & 10). The petitioner thereafter sent the draft and the said affidavit by registered A.D. post to respondent No.3, but to no avail as the respondent No.3 refused to accept the same (vide Annexures 11.1 to 11.3). Having seen no alternative the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Registrar on March 28,1989. The said appeal was accepted vide order dated July 9,1989 passed by the Registrar. The respondent No.3 were directed to enrol the petitioner as a member of the Society and to allow him reasonable time for depositing the admission fee and the share money (vide Annexures 12 & 13).