GEETA SOOD Vs. REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the decision of respondent No. 2 conveyed by respondent No. 3 vide letter dated January 31, 2001 (P9), whereby allotment of flat No. 6B on the third floor has been changed to flat No. SC on the fourth floor, and for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to allot flat No. 6B on the third floor to the petitioner, as originally allotted to her in the draw of lots held on July 30, 2000.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that the petitioner became a member of Punjab and Haryana High Court Co -operative Group Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society') on December 15, 1995. She continued to make deposits of the instalments as the costs of the flats constructed by the Society in the Mansa Devi Complex, Sector 5, Panchkula. On completion of the construction of the flats, a draw of lots for allotment of the flats among the members of the Society was held on July 30, 2000. The petitioner was allotted a flat on the third floor on provisional basis subject to the reconciliation of the account by her as it was pointed out to her that the payment made by her was deficient to the tune of Rs. 20,000/ -. She disputed the claim of the Society. On August 1, 2000 the petitioner vide letter (Annexure P3) asked the Society to furnish her details of the amount allegedly due from her. On August 3, 2000, respondent No. 3 returned the letter in original with the remarks that the petitioner can check up the record on August 4, 2000. It has been alleged that the petitioner was informed that the difference of Rs. 20,000/ - pertains to August, 1999. The petitioner was also required to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - for the allotment of the house on the third floor. On August 8, 2000 the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 35,000/ - vide cheque dated August 7, 2000, subject to the finalisation of the accounts with the Society. In the meantime, the petitioner was allotted a flat on the fourth floor by the Society. The petitioner challenged the allotment so made to her on the fourth floor. She served a legal notice to the Society. She filed the present writ petition to challenge the action of the Society. In the writ petition, the petitioner arrayed only the Registrar of Co -operative Societies, Haryana, and the President and the Secretary of the Society as the respondents. Rest of the respondents have been arrayed as respondents on their request to contest the petition. The petition has been contested. Respondent Nos. 2 to 9 have filed written statements. Respondent Nos. 1 and 10 have not filed any written statement to contest the petition.

(3.) HOWEVER , a look at Annexure R -2/9, which is a copy of the resolution dated July 30, 2000 passed by the Society, would show that it had been mentioned therein that the "House was further informed that Smt. Sarla Arora and Geeta Sood are deficient in payment to the extent of Rs. 15,000/ - and Rs. 20,000/ -, respectively, but both disputed and claimed that they had already made the full payments. House resolved that these two members be provisionally included in the draw subject to reconciliation and if it was found that they had not actually deposited deficient amount they will face expulsion from the allotted floors and pushed to the 4th floor.." The petitioner as well as Smt. Sarla Arora were found deficient in the payment of the amounts due from them. A further resolution dated October 10, 2000 (Annexure R -2/11) was approved in the General Body Meeting and the two "provisional members of 3rd floor, i.e. Smt. Geeta Sood and Mrs. Sarla Arora" were pushed to the fourth floor and the petitioner was allotted flat No. SC. The flats on the third floor, which were provisionally allotted to both of them, were allotted to Ms. Vijay Kohli and Mr. Sham Lal. It may, however, be mentioned that by the time notice was issued on February 15, 2001, the flats .on the third floor had already been allotted to Ms. Vijay Kohli and Mr. Sham Lal, and the full facts had not brought to the notice of the Court.