MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioner challenges quashing of the impugned order dated 19.8.1982, whereby the order passed by the Joint Registrar interalia stating that the membership of the petitioner could not be cleared as the petitioner was dealing in the business of purchase and sale of immovable property in the Union Territory of Delhi. Further prayer has been made to issue appropriate direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner by respondent No.2 society. Vide order dated 4.12.1982 a plot of 200 sq. yards was reserved for the petitioner. The petitioner died during the pendency of the writ petition on 20.11.1985. The legal heirs of the petitioners were brought on record vide order dated 3.4.1986. Affidavits have been filed by the L.Rs. to the effect that son of the petitioner Pradip Jain was entitled for the plot in question, if ultimately, the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition. Affidavits to that effect have been filed by Smt.Shanti Rani Jain (widow of the petitioner), Shri Subhash Chand Jain (son), Shri Rishi Kumar Jain (son), Shri Pawan Kumar Jain (son), Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain (son), Shri Sanjeev Jain (son), Smt.Kamal Jain (daughter), and Smt.Veena Jain (daughter). The affidavit of Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain is also on record. Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain in his affidavit deposed in paragraphs 3, 5, 6 and 7 as under:

(2.) Mr. Arun Mohan learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner never incurred disqualification under Rule 25 (1) (c) (ii) of the Societies Rules and the said Rule cannot be invoked in respect of the petitioner, who had been enrolled as a member in the year 1966. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that in any event of the matter a person, who brings two parties together for a transaction is only acting as an agent in relation of the property and cannot be termed as a 'dealer' in terms of the aforesaid Rule. Learned counsel contended that any other interpretation if given to the said Rule, the Rule would be arbitrary, discriminatory and capricious. Another argument, which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was that mandate of sub-Rule 4 of Rule 25 was not followed by the respondent in as much as neither any opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioner, nor the decision taken to disqualify the petitioner was sent for the approval of the Registrar as contemplated under sub-Rule 4 of Rule 25 of the Rules.. It has been further contended before this court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was neither any evidence on record of the respondent nor even a single sale deed to show that petitioner has either purchased or sold for himself or has sold/purchased as an agent of someone to demonstrate that the petitioner was dealing in the sale and purchase of the property and in the absence of any material on record, disqualification of the membership of the petitioner was unwarranted and illegal.

(3.) No body has been appearing for respondent No.2 Society. As a matter of fact the respondent-society has recommended the name of the petitioner for allotment of the plot in the list given to the Delhi Development Authority. The said list was sent in the Office of the Registrar Cooperative Society on 1.5.1982. Mr. Poddar, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner was allotted plot No. 5/30, measuring 200 sq. yards in Sarvpriya Vihar, New Delhi, in the draw of lot held on 28.12.1989. It is contended that the membership of the petitioner was void as it was in contravention of Rule 25 (1) (c) (ii) and as per the bye-laws of the society. Mr. Poddar further contended that in terms of Rule 25 the Cooperative Society Rules, petitioner was a dealer in the sale or purchase of properties.