SATINDER KUMAR PARASHAR Vs. ASSTT REGISTRAR COOP SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the refusal of respondent no.1 to treat the petitioner as Member of the respondent no.3-Society, w.e.f. 24.7.1970. Mr.Ishwar Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the father of the petitioner Shri Krishan Kumar was Member of Daya Nand Coop. Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Society") since 1966. On 11th June, 1970, the said Krishan Kumar wrote a letter to the Society that his share be transferred to his son i.e. the petitioner. The Society thereupon transferred the share of said Krishan Kumar in favour of his son and issued a receipt dated 24.7.1970 in the name of the petitioner. In the said receipt, it was mentioned that the transfer was subject to the approval of Delhi Development Authority. Mr.Sahai has contended that no such apporoval was required under the law at that time as the Society was goverened under Bombay Coop. Societies Act, 1925. Mr.Sahai has further contended that as per Section 19 of the said Act, a person becomes Member when a application for Membership has been accepted by the Society and the Managing Committee has approved such transfer. Section 19 of the said Act is extracted below :-

(2.) On the basis of these provisions, Mr.Sahai has contended that in terms of law once the request of the father of the petitioner was accepted for transfer of his share, Society having given a receipt in the name of the petitioner, inter alia, transferring his share, the Committee thereafter having approved the Membership, nothing more was required to be done by the petitioner to become Member of the Society and thereafter was entitled for allotment of the plot as a Member. The Managing Committee of the Society also approved the Membership of the petitioner in August, 1970 and to that effect the Society wrote a letter to the Registrar, Coop. Societies on 29.1.1982. After 24.7.70, it seems that various letters demanding further instalments towards plot was served on the petitioner from respondent no.3-Society and the petitioner from time to time deposited amounts of instalments towards price of plot to be allotted to him. A total amount of Rs.24,750.00 upto 26.5.79 was deposited by the petitioner with the Society. The Society called upon the petitioner to file affidavit to the effect that neither he nor his wife nor any member of his family dependent upon him owned a plot of land in Delhi, New Delhi or Delhi Contonment. Affidavit to that effect was filed by the petitioner. On being informed by the Society that the Registrar, Coop. Societies has objected to the name of the petitioner in the list of Members as his name has not been approved on the ground that the affidavit of the father of the petitioner was also required to be filed in the proforma. It is on the said basis that the Registrar did not approve the Membership of the petitioner on the ground that the mother of the petitioner had participated in a public auction for a plot of land at Pankha Road Residential Scheme on 10.11.1968. the possession of which was handed over to the mother of the petitioner on 24.3.1971. As the respondent has not approved the Membership of the petitioiner, this has led to the filing of the present petition by the petitioner.

(3.) Mr.Sanjay Poddar, learned counsel appearing for respondents nos. 1 and 2, has contended that the Membership of the petitioner was not approved as a general policy. He has further contended that no transfer had taken place and if any transfer had taken place, that was to camouflage the owning of the plot at Pankha Road Residential Scheme by the mother of the petitioner. He has also contended that when the said Krishan Kumar was himself not entitled to retain the Membership of the Society, in view of acquiring a plot of land by his wife, he could not have validly and legally transferred his membership in favour of his son. Lastly, he has contended that the Society has not agreed to include the name of the petitioner in the list of the Members of the Society. In any event of the matter, the petitioner could not have become a member of the Society as the Lieutenant Governor has frozen the list of the members on 3.8.67 and the transfer was without the approval of Lieutenant Governor.