R K VARSHNEY Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition challenge is to the order (annexure-L) dated October 17, 1994 passed by respondent No. 1 allowing the revision petition of respondent No. 5 filed under Section 80 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 against the order (annexure-I) dated December 21, 1993 of respondent No. 2.

(2.) In short the petition has been filed alleging that R.C.Sharma-respondent No. 5 was one of the founder member of Pragatisheel Nagrik Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. respondent No. 3 and he held the office of President or Secretary of the Society for many years. Respondent No. 5 clandestinely got enrolled his wife Smt. Santosh Sharma as a member of the Society vide membership No. 184 on August 25, 1988. He further enrolled his minor dependent daughter Ms.Radhika Sharma as member of the Society vide membership No. 190 on October 20, 1990. On the petitioner and few other members of the Society having come to know about the enrolling of his wife and the daughter as members by respondent No. 5 in violation of the Rules, respondent No. 5 made his wife and the daughter to resign on January 22, 1992 and April 19, 1993 respectively. It is further alleged that respondent No. 5 by virtue of having enrolled his wife and the daughter as members of the Society became disqualified from continuing as member under rule 25 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973. He was declared to be ceased to be a member of respondent No. 3-Society by an order dated December 21, 1993 passed by the Registrar Cooperative Societies-respondent No. 2 after taking into consideration the reply submitted by respondent No. 5 to the show-cause notice dated May 3, 1993. Impugned order dated October 17, 1994 passed by respondent No. 1 allowing the revision petition of respondent No. 5 and thereby setting aside the said order dated December 12, 1993 is illegal and is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Contention advanced by Shri Vipin Sanghi is two fold - (i) that the order dated October 17, 1994 was passed by respondent No. 1 in exercise of the revisional powers delegated to him under the Delhi (Delegation of Powers) Amendment Act, 1994 but the appointment of respondent No. 1 as an authority, who may exercise the power of the Administrator to hear revision under Section 80 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972, was not notified, and (ii) that respondent No. 1 acted erroneously in coming to the conclusion that the disqualification embodied in rule 25 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 applied to the wife and the daughter of respondent No. 5 who were subsequently enrolled and not to respondent No. 5, who is a founder member of respondent No. 3-Society.