Dilip
Posts : 14
|
Hon'ble Delhi High Court Clarificatory Order dtd. 2.04.2008
« Posted on : May 14, 2008, 10:19:49 AM
»
Hon'l High Court Order dtd. 2.04.2008
09.04.2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 1403/2006
RAJIB MAKHOPADHYAYA and ORS. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. K. K. Rai, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. S.K. Pandey and Mr. A.P.S. Rawat,
Advocates.
versus
REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETY ..... Respondent
Through Mr. A. Saran, Addl. Solicitor General with
Mr. N. Waziri and Mr. V.K. Tandon for RCS.
Mr. Rajeshwar Kumar Gupta, Advocate for
respondent 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH
O R D E R
02.04.2008
CM No. 38/2008 (for modification/clarification of order dt. 2.7.07)
1. This application has been filed by the respondent No. 1 i.e. the
Registrar Cooperative Society for clarification of the judgment dated 2nd July,
2007. The clarification sought is as to whether the judgment is prospective in
nature and if prospective, from which date.
2. We have considered the averments of the applicant in the light of
paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 which are reproduced as under:-
?12. Consequently, we uphold the constitutional validity of Rule 24(2) of
the DCS Rules subject to the above interpretation of the law submitted by the
learned Additional Solicitor General, which we accept and declare. The bye
laws of the Society shall be fully followed in entertaining the claims of
memberships set up by those applying through the
WP(C) No. 1403/2006 Pg. 1
of 5
medium of Rule 24 (2) of the DCS Rules. Thus, if the society has any existing
requirements in its bye laws about the characteristics required to be possessed
by an intending member, only such persons possessing the requirements as
stipulated in the existing bye laws and regulations of the Society are entitled
to apply pursuant to Rule 24(2) of the DCS Rules. We also make it clear that if
the Society has any existing members who have still not got the allotment of a
plot/flat, such members, in accordance with the bye laws, shall be first
allotted the vacant plot/flat/premises before resort to Rule 24(2) of the DCS
Rules. It is only when all such existing members awaiting allotment have been
allotted the premises/plot/flats, shall the operation of Rule 24 (2) of the DCS
Rules come into being.
13. Consequently, while dispelling the challenge to the constitutional
validity of Rule 24(2) of the DCS Rules, we nevertheless uphold the societies
right to restrict its membership in accordance with the bye-laws, regulations
and the rules of the society prospective candidates and further make it clear
that any prospective entrant to a society, pursuant to the mandate of Rule 24
(2) of the DCS Rules shall only be eligible to be allotted a plot after the
requirements of the existing members are fulfilled.
14. The operation of Rule 24 (2) of the DCS Rules requiring a draw of lots
in the presence of the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies shall only apply
to new prospective entrants who apply pursuant to the notification issued under
Rule 24(2) of the DCS Rules. In order to further streamline the process of
allotment and to expedite such process of allotment of residential accommodation
in the city which is already very scarce, we make it clear that
WP(C) No. 1403/2006 Pg. 2
of 5
the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, if called upon by the Society in writing
to conduct the draw of lots, shall do so not later than six weeks from the date
of the receipt of the written intimation from the Society.?
3. However, the learned Additional Solicitor General Shri Amrendra Saran
has submitted that since it is not clear, as to whether the judgment dated 2nd
July, 2007 is to be operative from the date of the judgment dated 2nd July, 2007
or from the date of the notification which is dated 6th April, 2005, the
Registrar Cooperative Societies is finding difficulty in complying with the
order and this may lead to manipulation of records in view of the large stakes
involved. He has also referred to the pending CBI enquiry in respect of some of
the societies. It is not for us to speculate on any such anticipated
apprehension except to state that in such an eventuality the law would naturally
take its course. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that since it
has not been denied that the judgment has become final and is being implemented,
he has no objection to the clarification to the effect that the judgment dated
2nd July, 2007 is prospective in nature and operates from 2nd July, 2007.
4. Having considered the respective pleas in respect of the
clarification of the above extracted paragraphs of the judgment, we are of the
view that the above paras demonstrate that no clarification was called for as
the judgment was clearly prospective in its operation but nevertheless in the
interest of justice in the light of pendency of large number of matters in the
office of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, we reiterate that the judgment
dated 2nd July, 2007
WP(C) No. 1403/2006 Pg. 3
of 5
was prospective and the said judgment was to be implemented with effect from 2nd
July, 2007.
4. The learned Additional Solicitor General expressed his
apprehension that in light of doubts which had arisen in the mind of the
Registrar Cooperative Societies, the order dated 2nd July, 2007 could not be
complied with in time and accordingly he seeks appropriate extension of time
for compliance and implementation of the judgment dated 2nd July, 2007, as
already six contempt petitions have been filed and others are contemplated.
While disposing of this application the time given in paragraph 14 of the
judgment dated 2nd July, 2007 for conducting the draw of lots from the receipt
of the written information from the society, is extended for another six weeks
from today.
5. In the light of this clarification, the contempt petitioners in
the contempt petitions being Cont. Case Nos. 606/07, 607/07, 608/07, 609/07,
610/07 and 622/07, state that since the period for implementation of the
judgment dated 2nd July, 2007 has been extended, the question of contempt does
not arise at present. They state that the contempt petitions may be disposed of
in the light of the above clarifications. Accordingly, these contempt
petitions are taken up and stand disposed of as infructuous in the light of the
extension of time granted by this Court for compliance of the judgment dated 2nd
July, 2008.
These applications stand disposed of accordingly.
CM Nos. 558-561/2008 (for intervention)
In the light of the above clarification, no further orders are
required to be passed
WP(C) No. 1403/2006 Pg. 4
of 5
in these application for intervention. Accordingly, these applications are
dismissed as having become infructuous. Dasti.
MUKUL MUDGAL,J
ARUNA SURESH, J
APRIL 02, 2008
WP(C) No. 1403/2006 Pg. 5
of 5
|
