Annexure - Rattan Lal

Mrs. Kamla Ajmera, Dated: 02.06.
2007
27, Chitrakut Apartments,
East Arjun Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
REGISTERED/A.D.
MAS Services Private Limited.,
AB-4, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029.
Dear Sir,
UNIT : HUDCO – 15% infrastructure bonds Series-I.

SUB. : Transfer of Bonds Folio No.5961.
REF. : Your letter No.Mas/Husco/223409 dt.13.11.2006.
I am enclosing herewith the following documents with the request

to please transfer the above Bonds in my name.
1. Original Bond Certificate – Folio No.IB 5961 – 15 numbers

(Distinctive No.218918 to 218932.
2. Attested copy of Death Certificate of my husband P.L.
Ajmera.
3. Regarding identity of my address, I am enclosing herewith a
photocopy of my Passport, a copy of Election Card and a
copy of PAN Number.
4. The surviving joint holder is my self residing at the above
address and my Bank account Number and details are as
under:
- UTI Bank Ltd., Karkardooma Branch,
Delhi-110032.
- S.B. A/c No.
5. The un encashed Dividend warrant for Rs.1125/- and for

Rs.142/- is being sent herewith for re-issuance in my name.
6. My signature is also attested by my Bank, as required by you
for your record.
Thanking You,
Yours truly, Signature of Mrs. Kamla Ajmera attested
Bank’s Stamp & Signature

(Mrs. KAMLA AJMERA)
Encl.: As above.
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.
C.W.P. No. OF 2001
IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Shanta Ajmera & Others ....PETITIONERS
VERSUS
The Registrar Co-op. Societies
& Others ....RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Smt. Shanta Ajmera W/O Shri B.L.Ajmera C/O Shri
P.L.Ajmera, 27 Chitrakut Apartment, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi110032.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:
1. That the deponent is the petitioner No.1 in the above noted case
and is conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and
is competent to file the present affidavit.
2. That the accompanying writ petition Under Article 226 of The
Constitution of India has been drafted by our Counsel as per our
instructions and the same has been read over and explained to us.
I say that the contents of the said accompanying writ petition are
true and correct to my knowledge.
3. That the contents of the accompanying writ petition are not being
reproduced herewith for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition.
The contents of the same may kindly be read as part and parcel of
this affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this day of May 2001, that the
contents of para No.1 to 3 of the above affidavit are true and correct to my
knowledge.
DEPONENT
C.W.P. No. OF 2001
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Shri Narayan Parshad Mantri S/O Late Shri D.L.Mantri C/O
Shri P.L.Ajmera, 27 Chitrakut Apartment, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi110032.
under:
and is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case
and is competent to file the present affidavit.
this affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
knowledge.
DEPONENT
C.M. NO. ______OF 2001
IN
C.W.P. No.______OF 2001
IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Shanta Ajmera & Others
....APPLICANTS/PETITIONERS
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
under:
2. That the accompanying application Under Section 151 C.P.C. for
grant of exemption from filing the certified copies of the annexures
has been drafted by our Counsel as per our instructions and the
same has been read over and explained to us. I say that the
contents of the said accompanying application are true and correct
to my knowledge.
3. That the contents of the accompanying application are not being
this affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
knowledge.
DEPONENT
C.M. NO._______OF 2001
IN
C.W.P. No. OF 2001
IN THE MATTER OF:

Smt. Shanta Ajmera &
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
under:
to my knowledge.
this affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
knowledge.
DEPONENT
C.M. NO. ______OF 2001
IN
C.W.P. No.______OF 2001
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
under:
grant of Stay has been drafted by our Counsel as per our
I say that the contents of the said accompanying application are
this affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
knowledge.
DEPONENT
C.M. NO._______OF 2001
IN
C.W.P. No. OF 2001
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
under:
this affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
knowledge.
DEPONENT
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT
NEW DELHI.
C.M. NO. ______OF 2005

IN
C.W.P. No. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shri D.C.Maheshwari & Ors. ..PETITIONERS
Versus

& Ors. ..RESPONDENTS
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
Smt. Shanta Ajmera & Ors.

..APPLICANTS/PETITIONERS
Versus

AFFIDAVIT

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare

as under:
1. That the deponent is the bonafide member of the Co-operative
Society known as Maitri Nagar Co-operative Group Housing
Society. The deponent had moved an application for her
impleadment as one of the petitioners and the same was

allowed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dt.21.08.2001 and
accordingly the applicant was incorporated as petitioner No.18
in the above mentioned petition.
2. That the accompanying application Under Section 151 C.P.C.
for re-calling or modifying the part of the orders dt.12.08.2005
to the extent it is pertaining to the deponent and the petitioner
No.19 – Shri Narain Parshad Mantri & petitioner No.20 - Shri
Rattan Lal Jhawar has been drafted by our Counsel as per our
instructions and the same has been read over and explained to
us. I say that the contents of the said accompanying application
are true and correct to my knowledge.
reproduced herewith for the sake of brevity and to avoid
repetition. The contents of the same may kindly be read as part
and parcel of this affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents
of paras No.1 to 3 of the above affidavit are true and correct to my
knowledge and no part of it, is false and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.
Verified at Delhi on this day of October 2005.
DEPONENT
C.M. NO. ______OF 2001
IN
C.W.P. No. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:

Shri D.C.Maheshwari & Others ....PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
under:
Society.
2. That the deponent was declared to be disqualified Under Rule 25 of
The Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules 1973 by the Registrar vide
order dt.24.2.1988. The deponent preferred an appeal against the
said order before the Lt. Governor Under Section 80 of The Coop.
Societies Act. The matter was remanded back to the Registrar for
conducting fresh inquiry. The Registrar after conducting the fresh
inquiry as directed by the Lt. Governor, was pleased to restore the
membership of the deponent vide order dt.27.9.1989.
3. That the deponent had not filed the writ petition for allotment of flat
to him and for issue of appropriate writ directing thereby the
respondents to allot a Flat and handover the possession. However,
the subject matter is before this Hon’ble Court and the deponent is
also entitled to the relief at par with the petitioners who are similarly
placed as of the deponent.
4. That the accompanying application Under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.
read with Section 151 C.P.C. for impleadment as petitioner in the
aforesaid case has been drafted by our Counsel as per our
this affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
knowledge.
DEPONENT
C.W.P. No. OF 2001
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Shri Ratan Lal Jhawar S/O Late Shri Panna Lal ji Jhawar, C/O
Shri S.N.Jhawar, 76 State Bank Colony, Near Nanak Piao Gurudwara,
Delhi.
under:
this affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
knowledge.
DEPONENT
C.W.P. No. OF 2001
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
Delhi.
under:
and is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case
and is competent to file the present affidavit.
this affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
knowledge.
DEPONENT
C.M. NO. ______OF 2001
IN
C.W.P. No.______OF 2001
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
Delhi.
under:
to my knowledge.
this affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
knowledge.
DEPONENT
C.M. NO._______OF 2001
IN
C.W.P. No. OF 2001
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
Delhi.
under:
to my knowledge.
this affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
knowledge.
DEPONENT
C.M. NO. ______OF 2001
IN
C.W.P. No.______OF 2001
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
Delhi.
under:
this affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
knowledge.
DEPONENT
C.M. NO._______OF 2001
IN
C.W.P. No. OF 2001
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS
AFFIDAVIT
Delhi.
under:
this affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
knowledge.
DEPONENT
C.M. NO. ______OF 2001

IN
C.W.P. No. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shri D.C.Maheshwari & Others ....PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS
VERSUS

AFFIDAVIT
Delhi.
under:
Society.
2. That the deponent was declared to be disqualified Under Rule 25 of
The Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules 1973 by the Registrar vide
order dt.24.2.1988. The deponent preferred an appeal against the
said order before the Lt. Governor Under Section 80 of The Coop.
Societies Act. The matter was remanded back to the Registrar for
conducting fresh inquiry. The Registrar after conducting the fresh

inquiry as directed by the Lt. Governor, was pleased to restore the
membership of the deponent vide order dt.27.9.1989.
3. That the deponent had not filed the writ petition for allotment of flat
to him and for issue of appropriate writ directing thereby the
respondents to allot a Flat and handover the possession. However,
the subject matter is before this Hon’ble Court and the deponent is
also entitled to the relief at par with the petitioners who are similarly
placed as of the deponent.
4. That the accompanying application Under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.
read with Section 151 C.P.C. for impleadment as petitioner in the
aforesaid case has been drafted by our Counsel as per our
this affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
knowledge.
DEPONENT
C.M. NO. ______OF 2001

IN
C.W.P. No. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:

Shri D.C.Maheshwari & Others ....PETITIONERS
VERSUS

AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Smt. Shanta Ajmera W/O Shri B.L.Ajmera,
C/O Shri P.L.Ajmera, 27 Chitrakut Apartment,
East Arjun Nagar, Delhi-110032.
2. Shri Narayan Parshad Mantri,
S/O Late Shri D.L.Mantri,
C/O Shri P.L.Ajmera, 27 Chitrakut Apartment,
3. Shri Ratan Lal Jhawar,
S/O Late Shri Panna Lal ji Jhawar,
C/O Shri S.N.Jhawar, 76 State Bank Colony,
Near Nanak Piao Gurudwara, Delhi.

....APPLICANTS
VERSUS
The Registrar Cooperative & Others
....NON-APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 READ WITH
SECTION 151 C.P.C.
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH
1. That the applicants namely Smt. Shanta Ajmera (Membership No.69A),
Shri N.P.Mantri (Membership No.70-A) and Shri Rattan Lal Jhawar
(Membership No.33-B) are the bonafide members of the
Society/Respondent No.3.
2. That on 20.12.1987, a General Body Meeting of the respondent No.3
resolved that the fresh elections be held on 7th January, 1988.
3. That due to the controversy between the members and the respondent
No.5/Shri Anand Jain (as was holding the post of the President at that
time), the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies was please to cease the
bank account and directed to hold the election which had fallen due, vide
orders dt.7.1.88. The Registrar was further please to appoint Shri
P.K.Panchal as an Election Officer to hold the elections vide order
dt.12.1.88.
4. That on 14.1.88, the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, suddenly
revoked the earlier orders dt.7.1.88 and 12.1.88 and appointed Shri
P.C.Kathuria for conducting enquiry under Section 55 of the Act and to
conduct the elections.
5. That the said Shri P.C.Kathuria instead of conducting the elections and the
enquiry Under Section 55 of the Act, prepared a report at the instance of
the respondent No.5 and submitted the same to the Registrar Co-operative
Societies. In the said report, it was alleged that the 27 members including
the present applicants incurred disqualification Under Rule 25 of the Delhi
Co-operative Societies Rules 1973. On the basis of said report, the
Assistant Registrar vide letter dt.24.2.88 informed the respondent No.3

about the so-called disqualification. The Respondent No.3 without taking
any action or steps treated the said letter as order of disqualification.
6. That the applicants as well as other members filed the appeal before the
Lt. Governor against the said letter dt.24.2.88. The Lt. Governor was
pleased to remand back the matter to the Registrar Co-operative Societies
for conducting fresh enquiry in respect of the said 27 members, vide
orders dt.9.12.88.
7. That on 27.9.89, the Registrar was pleased to restore the membership of
10 members. The applicants are out of those 10 persons whose
membership was restored by the Registrar vide order dt.27.9.89.
8. That in the meanwhile, on 10.8.1988 a draw of lot took place for allotment
of 69 flats out of total 99 flats because the membership of 27 persons was
under scrutiny by the Registrar. The name of the applicants as well as the
names of the petitioners No.2,3,4,6 & 10 could not be put in the said draw
of lots but they were assured that draw of lots in respect of the same will
take place in due course and for that purpose the society has kept 30 flats.
9. That though the concerned authorities repeatedly directed the Respondent
No.3 to hold the elections but the respondent No.5 managed to avoid the
election on one pretext or the other.
10. That though the membership of 10 persons including the applicants as
well as petitioner No.2,3,4,6, & 10 was restored by the Registrar vide
order 27.9.89 but no draw of lots conducted by the Respondent No.3. On
the other hand, the Respondent No.5 started illegally handing over the
possession of the flats to outsiders.
11. That being aggrieved by the acts and omissions of the respondent No.3 &
5, the present writ petition has been filed on 10.12.1991 by 17 members to

protect the interest of all the members of the society including the present
applicants.
12. That though the present applicants are not specifically named as a
petitioners in the present writ petition but the relief claimed categorically
protect the interest of the applicants.
13. That the impleadment of the applicants as a petitioners in the aforesaid
writ petition is necessary for effactually and completely to adjudicate upon
and settle all the questions involved in the petition and also to extend the
relief to the applicants.
14. That the petitioners already before this Hon’ble Court have no objection
with regard to joining of the applicants as petitioners.
PRAYER:
It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly permit the
applicants to join the proceedings as the petitioners in the above mentioned writ
petition, on such terms and conditions which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.
It is prayed accordingly.
NEW DELHI (ANIL AGGARWAL & CO.)

ADVOCATES FOR THE APPLICANTS
AGGARWAL BHAWAN, G.T.ROAD,
DATED: TIS HAZARI, DELHI-54.
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR : COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
OLD COURTS BUILDING : PARLIAMENT STREET : NEW
DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF:
Inquiry regarding ceasation of membership of 27 members of Matri

Nagar Coop. G/H Society Ltd.
ORDER
As per orders of Lt. Governor Delhi passed in the case of Maitri Nagar
Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. inquiry with regard to 27 members was
conducted by examining the records produced by the Society. Given below is the
brief of findings of the inquiry in each case :-
1. Shri Kulwant Rai Jain (Membership No.10-A)
Shri Kulwant Rai Jain’s membership was ceased from the society as he
was notresiding in Delhi but was residing in Bansi. The society has relied on the
membership register which has not been signed by the member and all letters sent
to him had been received back. The member produced registered letters of the
society which were received by him at the address given in the membership
register upto 23.11.1987. The member had also taken requisite action as per the
letters of the Society. The Society could not produce any conclusive evidence to
prove that he did not reside in Delhi. It was, therefore, not proper to cease his
membership from the Society in the absence of any concrete proof.
2. Shri R.P.Goel (Membership No.63-A)
His membership was ceased from the society on the ground that the
address given by him as his residential address was found to be a shop of Iron
Merchant and he was not residing there. The only reason put forth by the Society
in support of its contention was that all the letters sent to the members have been
received back. However, in support of his claim the member produced documents
which covered period from 1972 to 1978 with the address of the petitioner on all
the documents as 1193, Kucha Pati Ram which has been alleged by the society to
be not the residential address of the member. The society could produce any
conclusive evidence against the petitioner while the petitioner produced enough
evidence to substantiate his claim that he resides at the same address. There was
no ground, therefore, to cease his membership from the Society.
3. Ms. Kusum Jain (Membership No.94-B)
Her membership was ceased from the Society because she was not found
residing at D-9, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. The society produced affidavit duly attested
by the Oath Commissioner but not signed by the deponent and registered letters
No.1580 dated 22.1.1987, No.2563 dated 21.1.1987, and No.751 dated 1.1.1987
which were sent to her but were received back. In one of the registered letters
address mentioned by the Society was A-9, Ashok Vihar instead of D-9, Ashok
Vihar. The President of the Society stated that Ms. Kusum Jain was being
financed by Shri N.C.Goel, ex-President of the Society and this is a benami
membership of Shri N.C.Goel. Ms. Kusum Jain failed to produce any
documentary proof in support of her claim. Inspite of opportunities having been
given to her the member could not substantiate her claim and, therefore, it is
concluded that the society was right in ceasing her membership.
4. SHRI R.D.GUPTA (Membership No.62-A)
His membership was ceased as he was found not residing at the
address given in the membership register. The society produced
unsigned affidavits but duly attested by an Oath Commissioner and six
letters that were sent at the address given in the Register from the period
12.7.85 to 17.7.1985. The President of the Society also stated that Shri
Gupta was financed by Shri N.C.Goel and that it was a ‘benami’
membership of Shri N.C.Goel. The petitioner in his defence produced a
letter of Deputy Chief Manager (Personnel), Oriental Bank of Commerce
dated 30.4.1988 that Shri R.D.Gupta works as a Special Assistant and is a
residential of House No.2, Model Town, Bahadurgarh. The Petitioner
failed to avail the opportunity awarded by the Hon’ble L.G. to prove his
bonafide claim. He was enrolled as a member in 1979 and there is no
conclusive evidence that he was residing in Delhi in 1979 or even up-to-
date. Hence this membership was rightly ceased by the Society.
5. Shri R.P.Shorewal (Membership No.08-B)
The case of the society is that all letters sent to Shri R.P.Shorewal at 3228,
Chowmukhi Mandir were received back. The Society also produced two
unsigned affidavits. From the documents produced by the member it could not be
conclusively established that he was a resident of Delhi at the time when he was
enrolled as member. Therefore, the society was right in ceasing his membership.
6. Ms. Savitri Devi Jain (Membership No.09-A)
The case of the society is that she was not a resident of Delhi at the
relevant time when she was enrolled as a member in the society. She is
in fact a resident of 15/20, Chitla Road, Calcutta. The member could not
produce any conclusive evidence of residence in Delhi either at present or
at the time she was enrolled as a member in 1981. The Society was right
in ceasing her membership.
7. Shri Jai Chand Jain (Membership No.60-B)
His membership was ceased from the Society as he was not resident in
Delhi at the relevant time. The President of the Society stated that he is a resident
of Rohtak and that it is the ‘Benami’ membership of Shri N.C.Goel. The

documents produced by the member could not conclusively establish that he was
resident of Delhi at the relevant time. Therefore, the Society rightly ceased his
membership.
8. Shri Mehar Chand Jain (Membership No.73-A)
His membership was ceased from the Society as he is residing in Delhi
and given a fictitious address from which letters sent by the Society have been
received back. The member could not conclusively establish that he is a resident
of Delhi either at the relevant time or even now. The society was right in ceasing
his membership.
9. Shri R.K.Kothari (Membership No.88-A)
His membership was ceased from the society as he was not resident of
Delhi at the time of enrollment. He is in fact resident of Faridabad and all letters
sent to him at the address 8, Ishwar Colony, Bumper Road, Delhi, were received
back. Shri Kothari, However, produced documents which clearly establish that he
has been residing in Delhi from the time he became member in the Society.
Therefore, the society was not right in ceasing his membership.
10. Shri P.P.Bansal (Membership No.4-A)
The membership of Shri P.P.Bansal was ceased from the Society as he
was not resident of Delhi. The Society’s contention is that Shri Bansal is residing
in Pune and is a domicile of Haryana. Shri Bansal was enrolled as a member on
14.7.1987 from the address 504, Meera Bagh, Delhi. From the documents
supplied by Shri Bansal it is conclusively established that he was resident of Delhi
at the relevant time and, therefore, the society was not right in ceasing his
membership.
11. Shri Nirmal Kumar Jain (Membership No.96-B)

His membership was ceased on the ground that he was not residing in
Delhi and all letters sent to him at the address given by him were received back by
the Society. Further the society stated that it was a ‘Benami’ membership of Shri
N.C.Goel. From the records produced by Shri N.K.Jain it could not be
conclusively established that he was resident of Delhi at the relevant time.
Therefore, the society was right tin ceasing his membership.
12. Shri Pawan Kumar Aggarwal (Membership No.48-A)
The Society ceased his membership as he was not resident of Delhi. In
fact, he was resident of 23-A Subhash Road, Calcutta. Registered letters sent at
the Local address in Delhi were received back by the Society. The evidence
produced by Shri Pawan Kumar Aggarwal in support of his claim has
conclusively established that he was a resident of Delhi at the relevant time.
Therefore, the society was not right in ceasing his membership.
13. Shri Rattan Lal Jhawar (Membership No.33-B)
The membership of Shri Rattan Lal Jhawar was ceased as he was not
residing in Shakti Nagar at the address given at the time of enrollment. Actually,
he is residing in Faridabad. Although he has produced rent receipt since 1963, the
landlord says that he is not residing there and he has taken false receipt. He is
actually residing in House No.38, Sector-VII Faridabad. The documents
produced by Shri Jain in support of his claim conclusively prove that he was a
resident of Delhi at the relevant time and, therefore, the society was not right in
ceasing his membership.
14. Ms. Savitri Jain (Membership No.6-B)
Her membership was ceased by the Society as she was not residing in
Delhi. The address given is of Punjab National Bank which is not a residential
address. Ms. Jain could not produce any document to conclusively prove that she
was residing in Delhi at the relevant time. Therefore, the society was right in
ceasing her membership.
15. Shri Suresh Chand Goel (Membership No.17-A)
The membership of Shri Suresh Chand Goel was ceased as he was not
residing in Delhi and he was a resident of Calcutta. Further the society alleged
that it was actually a case of ‘benami’ membership of Shri N.C.Goel. The
members could not produce any evidence in support of his claim and, therefore,
the society was right in ceasing his membership.
16. Ms. Krishan Devi (Membership No.1-A)
The membership of Ms. Krishan Devi was ceased as all the letters sent to
her were received back and that she is a resident of Hissar and not of Delhi. The
society further alleged that it is a ‘benami’ membership of Shri N.C.Goel. The
member could not produce any document to conclusively prove that she was
resident of Delhi. The society was right in ceasing her membership.
17. Ms. S.D.Aggarwal (Membership No.99-B)
Her membership was ceased as she was not residing in Delhi at the
relevant time when she became member of the Society and that it is a ‘benami’
membership of Shri N.C.Goel. The members could not produce any document to
prove that she was the resident of Delhi at the relevant time and, therefore, the
society was right in ceasing her membership.
18. Shri N.P.Mantri (Membership No.70-A)
His membership was ceased as he was not residing in Delhi in fact he is
residing in Calcutta. All the letters sent to him were received back. The member
produced documents which conclusively establish that he was a resident of Delhi
at the relevant time. The Society was, therefore, not right in ceasing his
membership.
19. Shri Jile Singh Sharma (Membership No.12-C)
His membership was also ceased as he was not a resident of Delhi. From
the documents produced by him it could not be conclusively established that he
was a resident of Delhi at the relevant time. Therefore, the society was right in
20. Shri Shyam Lal Jain (Membership NO.43)
His membership was ceased on the ground that he owns a house in
Shalimar Bagh and is, therefore, disqualified under rule 25 to become a member
of the Society. From the documents produced by Shri Jain it has been established
that he did not suffer from any of the disqualifications as pointed out by the
society as the property stated to be in his name is not in the name of Shri S.L.Jain.
The Society was, therefore, not right in ceasing his membership.
21. Shri N.C.Goel (Membership No.30)
The membership of Shri N.C.Goel was ceased from the society as there
was no response on the notice served on him. Further it was alleged by the
Society that Shri N.C.Goel is holder of the property No.AG-20, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi. A copy of the lease deed was also filed. From the documents produced by
the Society and the member, it has been clearly established that Shri N.G.Goel
suffered from disqualification under rule 25 and, therefore, the society was right
in ceasing his membership.
22. Shri Richhpal Jain (Membership No.95)
The membership of Shri Richhpal Jain was ceased on the ground that he
own property No.504, Meera Bagh, Delhi. From the documents produced before
me it has been clearly eatablished that property No.504, Meera Bagh is not in the
name of Shri Richhpal Jain and therefore, the society was not right in ceasing his
membership.
23. Ms. Rajkumari (Membership No.97-B)
Her membership was ceased as she was found to be resident of Calcutta.
The society also pointed out that it is a ‘benami’ membership of Shri N.C.Goel.
The member could not produce any document which could conclusively
established that she was a resident of Delhi at the relevant time, therefore, the
24. Ms. Saroj Jain (Membership No.98-A)
She is a resident of Rewari and according to the Society it is a ‘benami’
membership for Shri N.C.Goel. She was enrolled on 4.4.1981. The member
could not produce any document which could establish her claim of a bonafide
member of the society. The Society was right in ceasing her membership.
25. Ms. Shanta Ajmera (Membership No.69-A)
As per the versions of the Society she is a resident of Calcutta with the
address 54-A, Block-B, Bango Avenue, VIP Road, Calcutta. She produced
documents which clearly establish that she was a resident of Delhi at the relevant
time, therefore, the society was not right in ceasing her membership.
26. Shri Vinod Kumar (Membership No.14-A)
His membership was ceased from the society because he was not residing
in Delhi at the relevant time. The member could not produce any document
which could conclusively prove that he was a resident of Delhi at the relevant
time. Therefore, the society was right in ceasing his membership.
27. Ms. Santosh Jain (Membership No.35-B)
Her membership was ceased as she was reportedly not residing in Delhi
and in fact she was resident of Calcutta. The member could not produce any
document in support of her claim, therefore, the society was right in ceasing her
membership.
Orders accordingly.
Sd/-
(K.S.MEHRA)
Registrar Coop. Societies
No.RCS/CGH/89/8509 Dated 27.9.1989.
Copy to the following for information and necessary action:

1. President/Secretary, Maitri Nagar, Cooperative G/H
Society Ltd., Plot No.29, Sector No.9, Rohini, Delhi.
2. All the above 27 members.
Sd/-
(K.S.MEHRA)
C.M. NO. ______OF 2001

IN
C.W.P. No. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS

INDEX
S.NO. PARTICULARS COURT FEES PAGE NO.

__________________________________________________________________
1. Urgent application. 2.75 A
2. Letter of Service. B
3. Application Under Order 1 Rule 1 to 4

10 Read With Section 151 C.P.C.
on behalf of Smt. Shanta Ajmera,
Shri N.P.Mantri & Shri Rattan Lal 2.75
Jhawar.
4. Affidavit of Smt. Shanta Ajmera in 5&6

support of application.
5. Affidavit of Shri N.P.Mantri in support 7&8

of application.
6. Affidavit of Shri Rattan Lal Jhawar 9 & 10

in support of application.
7. Vakalatnama of Smt. Shanta Ajmera. 2.75 11
8. Vakalatnama of Shri N.P.Mantri. 2.75 12
9. Vakalatnama of Shri Rattan Lal Jhawar. 2.75 13

__________________________________________________________________

C.M. NO. ______OF 2001

IN
C.W.P. No. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS

To
The Registrar,
Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi.
APPLICATION FOR URGENT HEARING
Sir,
The accompanying application may kindly be treated as an urgent one.

The grounds of the urgency are as under:
"The above mentioned petition is on the Regular Board and is a part heard
matter. The applicants are the necessary parties to be impleaded as the petitioners
in the above mentioned writ petition. The petition is likely to be disposed off
shortly and in the event the applicants are not impleaded as the petitioners, the
applicants shall suffer irreparable loss. Hence, the present C.M. may kindly be
treated as an urgent one."
Yours Faithfully,

LETTER OF SERVICE
1. Ms. Neelam Rathore, 2. Shri Pardeep Nandrajog,

Advocate for the Petitioners, Advocate for the Respondents
419A New Lawyers Chamber Complex, No.16,18,20,21,24,25 & 28 to 36,
Patiala House, New Delhi. S-289, Greater Kailash, Part-II,
New Delhi-110048,
3. Shri Pardeep Jain, 4. Shri A.K.Sangal,

Advocate for the Respondent No.19, Advocate for the Respondent No.5,
305, Parkash Chambers, 226, Lawyers Chamber,
6, Netaji Subhash Marg, Supreme Court, New Delhi.
New Delhi-110002.
5. Shri Amit S.Chaddha, 6. Ms. Kirti Uppal,

Advocate for Respondent No.4, Advocate for the Respondent No.3,
32, Lawyers Chamber, 135 Lawyers Chamber,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi. Delhi High Court, New Delhi.
7. Shri R.K.Saini, 8. Shri Anil Sapra,

Advocate for Respondent No.9, Advocate for the Respondent
328, Lawyers Chamber, No.7,10,11,12 & 15,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi. 139, Lawyers Chamber,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi.
9. The Standing Counsel,

For Registrar Co-op. Societies,
Delhi.
Dear Sirs,
Please take notice that the C.M., a copy of which is being enclosed
herewith, in the C.W.P. No.3871/91 titled as "D.C.Maheshwari & Ors. Vs.
Registrar Co-operative Societies & Others" is likely to be listed on or after 9 th July
2001.

C.M. NO. ______OF 2005

IN
C.W.P. No. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus

AND
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus

AFFIDAVIT
I, Smt. Shanta Ajmera W/O Shri B.L.Ajmera C/O Shri P.L.Ajmera, 27 Chitrakut
Apartment, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi-32, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as
under:
1. That the deponent is the bonafide member of the Co-operative Society
known as Maitri Nagar Co-operative Group Housing Society. The deponent had
moved an application for her impleadment as one of the petitioners and the same
was allowed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dt.21.08.2001 and accordingly the
applicant was incorporated as petitioner No.18 in the above mentioned petition.
2. That the present petition has been filed before this Hon’ble Court as
representative petition claiming the relief for all the members of the Society
including the petitioner/applicant.
3. That the accompanying application U/Sec. 151 CPC for
re-calling/modifying the part of the orders dt.12.8.05 to the extent it is pertaining
to the deponent and the petitioner No.19 – Shri Narain Parshad Mantri &
petitioner No.20 - Shri Rattan Lal Jhawar has been drafted by our Counsel as per
our instructions and the same has been read over and explained to us. I say that
the contents of the said accompanying application are true and correct to my
knowledge.
reproduced herewith for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition. The contents
of the same may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of paras
No.1 to 4 of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and no part
of it, is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
C.M. NO. ______OF 2005

IN
C.W.P. No. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus

AND
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus

AFFIDAVIT
I, Shri Narain Parshad Mantri S/O Late Shri D.L. Mantri, C/O Shri P.L.Ajmera,
27 Chitrakut Apartment, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi-32, do hereby solemnly affirm
and declare as under:
1. That the deponent is the bonafide member of the Co-operative Society
known as Maitri Nagar Co-operative Group Housing Society. The deponent had
moved an application for her impleadment as one of the petitioners and the same
was allowed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dt.21.08.2001 and accordingly the
deponent was incorporated as petitioner No.19 in the above mentioned petition.
2. That the present petition has been filed before this Hon’ble Court as
representative petition claiming the relief for all the members of the Society
including the petitioner/applicant.

3. That the accompanying application U/Sec. 151 CPC for
re-calling/modifying the part of the orders dt.12.8.05 to the extent it is pertaining
to the deponent and the petitioner No.18 – Smt. Shanta Ajmera & petitioner
No.20 - Shri Rattan Lal Jhawar has been drafted by our Counsel as per our
instructions and the same has been read over and explained to us. I say that the
contents of the said accompanying application are true and correct to my
knowledge.
reproduced herewith for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition. The contents
of the same may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of paras
No.1 to 4 of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and no part
of it, is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
C.M. NO. ______OF 2005

IN
C.W.P. No. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus

AND
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus

AFFIDAVIT
I, Shri Rattan Lal Jhawar S/O Late Shri Panna Lal ji Jhawar, C/O Shri
S.N. Jhawar, 76, State Bank Colony, Near Nanak Piao Gurudwara, Delhi,
do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
Society known as Maitri Nagar Co-operative Group Housing Society. The
deponent had moved an application for her impleadment as one of the
petitioners and the same was allowed by this Hon’ble Court vide order
dt.21.08.2001 and accordingly the deponent was incorporated as petitioner
No.20 in the above mentioned petition.
2. That the present petition has been filed before this Hon’ble Court
as representative petition claiming the relief for all the members of the
Society including the petitioner/applicant.

3. That the accompanying application U/Sec. 151 CPC for re-
calling/modifying the part of the orders dt.12.8.05 to the extent it is
pertaining to the deponent and the petitioner No.18 – Smt. Shanta Ajmera
& petitioner No.19 - Shri Narain Parshad Mantri has been drafted by our
Counsel as per our instructions and the same has been read over and
explained to us. I say that the contents of the said accompanying
application are true and correct to my knowledge.
reproduced herewith for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition. The
contents of the same may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of
paras No.1 to 4 of the above affidavit are true and correct to my
DEPONENT
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW
DELHI.
C.M. NO. ______OF 2005

IN
C.W.P. No. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus

AND
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus

AFFIDAVIT
I, Shri Rattan Lal Jhawar S/O Late Shri Panna Lal ji Jhawar, C/O Shri
S.N. Jhawar, 76, State Bank Colony, Near Nanak Piao Gurudwara, Delhi,
do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That the deponent is the applicant/petitioner No.20 in the above
noted case and is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the
present case and is competent to swear this affidavit for himself as well as
on behalf of other applicants/petitioners No.18 & 19.
Society known as Maitri Nagar Co-operative Group Housing Society. The
deponent had moved an application for her impleadment as one of the
petitioners and the same was allowed by this Hon’ble Court vide order
dt.21.08.2001 and accordingly the applicant was incorporated as petitioner
No.20 in the above mentioned petition.
3. That the accompanying application U/Sec. 151 CPC for grant of
exemption from filing the certified copies of the annexures has been
drafted by our Counsel as per our instructions and the same has been read
over and explained to us. I say that the contents of the said accompanying
application are true and correct to my knowledge.
reproduced herewith for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition. The
contents of the same may kindly be read as part and parcel of this
affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of
paras No.1 to 4 of the above affidavit are true and correct to my
DEPONENT
DELHI.
C.M. NO. ______OF 2005

IN
C.W.P. No. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus

AND
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus

INDEX
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Urgent application. A
2. Letter of Motion. B
3. Application u/S 151 CPC 1-21

for recalling or modifying
the part of the orders
dt.12.08.05 along with
affidavits of applicants/
petitioners No.18,19&20.
4. ANNEXURE ‘A’
Copy of order dt.1.6.88 22-24
passed by Sh. H.L.Kapur,
Lt. Governor, Delhi
5. ANNEXURE ‘B’
Copy of order dt.9.12.88 25-31
passed by Sh.Romesh Bhandari,
Lt. Governor, Delhi.
6. ANNEXURE ‘C’
Copy of order 27.9.89 passed 32-41
by Sh. K.S.Mehra, Registrar
Coop. Societies in enquiry
regarding ceasation of membership
Of 27 members of Matri Nagar
Coop. G/H Society Ltd.
7. ANNEXURE ‘D’
Copy of order dt.30.5.90 passed 42-44
by Shri R.Raghuraman, Joint
Registrar (GH) Coop. Societies.
8. ANNEXURE ‘E’
by H.M.J. B.N.Kirpal &
H.M.J. Arun Kumar.
9. ANNEXURE ‘F’
by H.M.J. D.P.Wadhwa &
H.M.J. R.L.Gupta.
10. ANNEXURE ‘G’

Copy of List of members of 50-52
Maitri Nagar Coop. G/H Society
filed by the Administrator
Shri S.P.Sehgal dt.9.11.93.
11. Application u/S 151 CPC for 53-56

grant of exemption from filing
the certified copies of the
annexures along with affidavit
of applicant/petitioner No.20.
-------------------------------------------------------
NEW DELHI (ANIL AGGARWAL)

ADVOCATES FOR THE
APPLICANTS/
PETITIONERS NO.18,19&20
ANIL AGGARWAL & CO.
AGGARWAL BHAWAN,
G.T.ROAD,
BEFORE SHRI ARVIND NIGAM : COURT
COMMISSIONER : APPOINTED BY DELHI HIGH COURT IN
THE CWP NO.3871/1991 TITLED AS D.C.MAHESHWARI
& ORS. VS. THE REGISTRAR CO-OP. SOCIETIES & ORS.
IN THE MATTER OF:
WP(C) No. 3871 OF 1991
Shri D.C. Maheshwari & Ors.

….PETITIONERS
Versus
The Registrar Coop. Society & Ors.

….RESPONDENTS
CLAIM/BRIEF SYNOPSIS/SUBMISSIONS ON
BEHALF OF SMT. SHANTA AJMERA – PETITIONER
NO.18 IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED WRIT PETITION
AS PER AMENDED MEMO OF PARTIES DATED
28.08.2001 FILED IN PURSUANCE OF ORDER
DATED 21.08.2001 PASSED IN CM NO.7092 OF
2001.
Sir,
The claimant – Petitioner No.18 – Smt. Shanta Ajmera
(herein after referred as the claimant) respectfully submits as
under:
1. That the claimant is filing the present claim, synopsis
and submissions in respect of her claim to the entitlement of
allotment and possession of the Flat in the Maitri Nagar
Coop. Group Housing Society (herein after referred as
society), at the reasonable cost and at the earliest. The
present claim is being preferred as per the directions of the
Hon’ble Court dt.10.05.2007 passed in writ petition
mentioned above.
2. That the claimant is a bonafide founder member of the
Society, which was formed in 1979 having membership
No.69 with a maximum number of 99 members. Copy of list
of said 99 members is enclosed as Annexure ‘A’.
3. The affairs of the Society were going on smoothly until
one Mr. Anand Jain (Respondent No.5) took over as the
President of the Society after election held on 21.12.1986.
The said Respondent No.5 in collusion and connivance with
some of the persons started functioning like a builder,
keeping aside the aims and object of the society, cooperative
movement and the provisions/law/rules applicable to the
Cooperative Group Housing Society. Hence, on 20.12.1987
a GBM was called and considering the illegal acts, designs
and conduct of the president and his associates, it was
resolved to hold a fresh election on 07.01.1988. The
respondent No.5 took over the possession of the entire
records pertaining to the Society and declared that Shri R.C.
Jain (then Secretary) had been suspended.
4. That as the members could not prevent the illegal acts
and designs prevailing in the affairs of the Society had no
option but to made a representation to the Registrar of
Societies on 07.01.1988. The Registrar on the said
representation was pleased to direct :
(1) The election fallen due would be conducted by the

department.
(2) The bank operations of the society be temporarily
stopped. The election officer was also appointed but
due to unknown reasons the said election officer
preferred to resign and thereafter another election
officer was appointed and he was also assigned with
the job of conducting enquiry to the alleged report of
disqualification of 27 members in terms of Rule 25 of
Delhi Co-operative Society Rules, 1973. The said
official joined the hands with the respondent No.5 and
even without issuing show-cause notice or affording
any opportunity to the concerned members submitted
a report alleging therein that 27 members incurred
disqualification in view of Rule 25 of the Rules. That
on the basis of said report the Registrar passed the
order dt.24.02.1988 whereby declared that 27
members were declared disqualified. A copy of the
said order is being enclosed hereto as Annexure ‘B’.
5. That when the claimant – Smt. Shanta Ajmera came to
know of the alleged cessation of membership, she as well as
other, affected persons filed the revision petition challenging
the order dt.24.02.1988 passed by the Registrar, before the
Lt. Governor, Delhi. The Hon’ble Lt. Governor was pleased
to pass order dt.01.06.1988 and there by “stayed the
impugned order dt.24.02.1988 and directed that Society
should not enrolled new members and also restrained from
refunding the amount to the said 27 members who had
challenged the said illegal expulsion”. A copy of the said
order is enclosed hereto as Annexure ‘C’.
6. That since out of total number of 99 members, the
membership of 27 members illegally disqualified and
pending before the Hon’ble Lt. Governor, Delhi and there was
also stay in respect of enrollment of new members, leaving
only 72 members eligible for allotment of the Flats by draw of
lots. Accordingly, on 10.08.1988 a draw of lots was

conducted wherein the names of only 69 persons were put
as out of 72 three were in arrears of certain dues or certain
formalities were yet to be completed. A list of members
considered for draw of lots as conducted on 10.08.1988 is
being enclosed hereto as Annexure ‘D’.
7. That on 09.12.1988, the revision petitions filed by the
claimant as well as other persons were finally disposed of by
the Lt. Governor, Delhi. By the said order “the Lt. Governor
was pleased to set-aside the order dt.24.02.1988 and
remanded back to the matter to the Registrar for
conducted fresh enquiry after giving proper hearing to
the persons concerned. The Lt. Governor was further
pleased order that status-quo be maintained regarding
the position and status of the petitioners and other like
person till the dispute is finally adjudicated upon”. A
copy of the said order is enclosed hereto as Annexure ‘E’.
8. That the society filed a review petition before the Lt.
Governor, Delhi for review of its order dt.09.12.1988. The
said review petition was dismissed by the Lt. Governor, Delhi
vide order dt.18.01.1989 and it was directed that “there is
also a direction to the Society for the maintenance of
status-quo, as such this direction has to be maintained
by the officer bears of the Society”. A copy of the order
dt.18.01.1989 is being enclosed hereto as Annexure ‘F’.

9. That in pursuance of the order dt.09.12.1988 passed
by the Lt. Governor, Delhi, the Registrar of Societies re-
examined the so-called subject matter of
disqualification/cessation of members ship of 27 members,
which includes the claimant. After conducting a detailed
enquiry, the Registrar of Societies passed a detailed order
dt.27.09.1989 and thereby the membership of the claimant
was restored to its original number and status by declaring
that cessation of the membership was illegal. A copy of the
said order is enclosed hereto as Annexure ‘G’.
10. That the Society which was being controlled by the
Respondent No.5 in utter violation of the law relating to Co-
operating Group Housing Society and the rules made there
under was adamant to throw out the claimant from the
membership at any cost, preferred revision petition
challenging the restoration of the membership of the certain
members including the claimant before the Lt. Governor,
Delhi. The Lt. Governor, Delhi vide its order dt.25.06.1991
dismissed the said revision petition with categorical order
that “I therefore by single order dismissed the petitions
and confirmed the order of re-instatement of the
respondents mentioned above in there membership of
society”. A copy of the said order is being enclosed hereto
as Annexure ‘H’.
11. That as despite all efforts and the orders of the Lt.
Governor, Delhi in their favour, the bonafide members were
denied to have their Flats by the Society on one pretext or
the other. The genuine and bonafide members of the
Society, considering the affairs of the Society handled by the
respondent No.5 and his associates preferred the present
writ petition as a representative petition for all the concerned
persons with the reliefs as claimed in the petition so that
they may get their respective Flats without any further delay.
The said petition is number as 3871 of 1991. As the said
writ petition was a representative petition it was filed by a
group of persons supported by others including the present
claimant.
12. That the matter came up for hearing before this
Hon’ble Court on 16.12.1991 and considering the facts and
circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Division Bench
comprising of Mr. Justice B.N. Kirpal & Mr. Justice Arun
Kumar directed the respondent No.5 to handover the records
to prevent the tampering. The Hon’ble Bench also observed
serious lapses and the same is clearly mentioned in the said
order. A copy of the said order is being enclosed hereto as
Annexure ‘I’.
13. That during the pendency of the said petition instead
of mending the behaviour, the respondent No.5 in collusion
and connivance with his associates started illegally handing

over the possession of the Flats to outsiders without any
lawful authority to create a hindrance in delivery of the
possession to the lawful beneficiaries including the claimant.
On this, an application was moved for appointment of the
receiver and Local Commissioner vide CM No.4034/1992.
The Hon’ble Division Bench comprising of Mr. Justice B.P.
Wadhwa & Mr. Justice R.L. Gupta were pleased to appoint
the Local Commissioner with wide powers to take possession
of the vacant Flats and if required to take the police
assistance also vide order dt.28.05.1992. A copy of the said
order is being enclosed hereto as Annexure ‘J’.
14. That the proceeding by the Local Commissioner
Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Nigam were conducted on June
13, 1992 and a detailed report was submitted on
26.06.1992, reflecting the state of affairs, manner of
handling the affairs of the Society, as well the details of
occupants other than the bonafide members were placed on
record with detailed photographs of the Flats. The said
report and the photographs are already on the record of the
Court. However, a copy of the report is enclosed hereto as
Annexure ‘K’.
15. That the Registrar of Societies by invoking Section 32
of the Act superceded the managing committee and
appointed the Administrator. The Hon’ble High Court
directed the Administrator to file a list of members of the

Society. In pursuance to the said directions, the
Administrator filed a list of members of the Society as on
09.11.1993, which mentioned the name of the claimant as a
bonafide member of the Society that clearly establish that
the claimant was/is a bonafide member throughout. A copy
of the list dt.09.11.1993 is being enclosed as Annexure ‘L’.
16. That the Hon’ble High Court had also directed the
Registrar of Coop. Societies to file a status report in respect
of the membership and status as on date as per the records
of the Registrar of Societies. The officer of the Registrar of
Societies through its Counsel Mr. Kamaldeep Advocate in his
report mentioned that the claimant is a bonafide member as
her membership was re-stored long ago and had not been
allotted Flats despite the fact her name is yet in the records
of the Registrar as a bonafide member, included in the block
of 10 members. A copy of the said status report is being
filed herewith as Annexure ‘M’.
17. That the unauthorized persons illegally occupied the
flat in contravention of Law by ante-dated possession letters
issued by the then President Shri Anand Jain, after stay
orders/order of status-quo. They also collusively on the
pretext of so-called membership took over the affairs of the
society, manipulated/ tampered the record and as the
Society is being run, supervised, managed and controlled by

such persons who are illegal occupants in the Flats are
justifying their illegal acts under the cover of society.
18. That the claimant had paid the amount as and when
demanded by the Society may be on account of membership
fees, share money, land money, construction money as well
other expenses. The claimant is ready and willing to pay the
amount if any being outstanding on account of the said Flat.
It is pertinent to mention here that Hon’ble High Court vide
its order dt.12.08.2005 had directed certain persons to pay a
sum of Rs.8 Lacs subject to adjustment at the time of
handing over the possession. On the other hand in fact the
cost of construction as calculated along with the interest and
other charges is much less than the said amount and this
factum can be looked into by the fact that while handing
over the possession of Flat No.602 (HIG) to Smt. Sudershan
Kumari the society had made a specific demand of
construction money to the tune of Rs.1,26,000/- and the
figure after calculating the principle amount and interest
there upon was calculated only to a sum of Rs.2,25,771/- as
per letter dt.27.08.01. Apart from the said fact the claimant
has suffered huge financial loss and mental agony, as she
was denied the occupation and the possession of the Flat to
which she was entitled about 17 years ago and the illegal
persons were in occupation and possession of the Flats and

enjoying at the cost of the claimant. Copy of letter
dt.27.08.01 is enclosed as Annexure ‘N’.
19. That the respondent No.5 - Anand Jain himself filed
an application with affidavit dt.06.01.01 categorically stating
that the respondents No.10 to 26,28 to 38 are unauthorized
occupants and even some of them have not paid even a
single penny on account of cost of Land and cost of
construction. Copy of the same i.e. CM 309/01 with affidavit
is enclosed as Annexure ‘O’.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that considering
all the facts, circumstances and the injustice being meted
out to the claimant by denying the occupation and
possession of the Flat in HIG category i.e. category A for
which the claimant had applied and had paid the amount
accordingly to which he is legally entitled to be given at the
earliest and that too at the reasonable cost.
(ANIL AGGARWAL)
ADVOCATE
NEW DELHI ANIL AGGARWAL
& CO.
ADVOCATES FOR THE PETITIONER
NO.18
IN THE MATTER OF:
WP(C) No. 3871 OF 1991

….PETITIONERS
Versus

….RESPONDENTS
BEHALF OF SHRI N.P. MANTRI – PETITIONER
NO.19 IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED WRIT PETITION
AS PER AMENDED MEMO OF PARTIES DATED
28.08.2001 FILED IN PURSUANCE OF ORDER
DATED 21.08.2001 PASSED IN CM NO.7092 OF
2001.
Sir,
The claimant – Petitioner No.19 – Shri N.P. Mantri
(herein after referred as the claimant) respectfully submits as
under:
and submissions in respect of his claim to the entitlement of
mentioned above.
No.70 with a maximum number of 99 members. Copy of list
of said 99 members is enclosed hereto as Annexure ‘A’.

department.
5. That when the claimant – Shri N.P. Mantri came to
know of the alleged cessation of membership, he as well as

person till the dispute is finally adjudicated upon”. Copy
of the said order is enclosed hereto as Annexure ‘E’.

Governor, Delhi in their favour the bonafide members were
claimant.
to prevent the tampering. The Hon’ble Bench also observed
Annexure ‘I’.
and connivance with his associates started illegal handing

Annexure ‘K’.

Society. In pursuance to the directions of the High Court the
09.11.1993. The said list clearly mentioned the name of the
claimant as a bonafide member of the Society. The facts
clearly establish that the claimant was/is a bonafide
member throughout. A copy of the list dt.09.11.1993 is
being enclosed as Annexure ‘L’.
his membership was re-stored long ago and had not been
allotted Flats despite the fact his name is yet in the records
of 10 members. Copy of the said status report is being filed
herewith as Annexure ‘M’.
issued by the then President Shri Anand jain, after stay

which he was entitled about 17 years ago and the illegal

dt.27.08.01 is being enclosed hereto as Annexure ‘N’.
19. That the respondent No.5 - Mr. Anand Jain himself
filed an application with affidavit dt.06.01.01 categorically
stated that the respondents No.10 to 26,28 to 38 are
unauthorized occupants and even some of them have not
paid even a single penny on account of cost of Land and cost
of construction. Copy of the same i.e. CM 309/01 with
affidavit is enclosed as Annexure ‘O’.
PRAYER
possession of the Flat in HIG category i.e. category A for
which the claimant had applied and had paid the amount
accordingly to which he is legally entitled to be given at the
earliest and that too at the reasonable cost.
(ANIL AGGARWAL)
ADVOCATE
& CO.
NO.19
IN THE MATTER OF:
WP(C) No. 3871 OF 1991

….PETITIONERS
Versus

….RESPONDENTS
BEHALF OF SHRI RATAN LAL JHAWAR –
PETITIONER NO.20 IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED
WRIT PETITION AS PER AMENDED MEMO OF
PARTIES DATED 28.08.2001 FILED IN PURSUANCE
OF ORDER DATED 21.08.2001 PASSED IN CM
NO.7092 OF 2001.
Sir,
The claimant – Petitioner No.20 – Shri Ratan Lal
Jhawar (herein after referred as the claimant) respectfully
submits as under:
mentioned above.
No.33 with a maximum number of 99 members. Copy list of
said 99 members is enclosed hereto as Annexure ‘A’.

department.
5. That when the claimant – Shri N.P. Mantri came to
know of the alleged cessation of membership, he as well as

person till the dispute is finally adjudicated upon”. Copy
of the said order is enclosed hereto as Annexure ‘E’.

Governor, Delhi in their favour the bonafide members were
claimant.
to prevent the tempering. The Hon’ble Bench also observed
Annexure ‘I’.

Annexure ‘K’.

Society. In pursuance to the directions of the High Court the
09.11.1993. The said list clearly mentioned the name of the
claimant as a bonafide member of the Society. The facts
clearly establish that the claimant was/is a bonafide
member throughout. A copy of the list dt.09.11.1993 is
being enclosed as Annexure ‘L’.
his membership was re-stored long ago and had not been
allotted Flats despite the fact his name is yet in the records
of 10 members. A copy of the said status report is being
filed herewith as Annexure ‘M’.
issued by the then President Shri Anand Jain, after stay

which he was entitled about 17 years ago and the illegal

dt.27.08.01 is being enclosed hereto as Annexure ‘N’.
19. That the respondent No.5 - Mr. Anand Jain himself
filed an application with affidavit dt.06.01.01 categorically
stated that the respondents No.10 to 26,28 to 38 are
unauthorized occupant and even some of them have not paid
even a single penny on account of cost of Land and cost of
construction. Copy of the same i.e. CM 309/01 with
affidavit is being enclosed herewith as Annexure ‘O’.
PRAYER
possession of the Flat for which the claimant had applied
and had paid the amount accordingly to which he is legally
entitled to be given at the earliest and that too at the
reasonable cost.
(ANIL AGGARWAL)
ADVOCATE
& CO.
NO.20
IN THE MATTER OF:
WP(C) No. 3871 OF 1991

….PETITIONERS
Versus

….RESPONDENTS
BEHALF OF SHRI D.C. MAHESHWARI –
PETITIONER NO.1 IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED
WRIT PETITION.
Sir,
The claimant – petitioner No.1 – D.C. Maheshwari
(Dharmi Chand Maheshwari) hereinafter referred as claimant
respectfully submits as under:
mentioned above.
society, which was formed in 1979 having membership
No.34 with a total number of 99 members. The list of said
99 members who were/are the original and bonafide
members which includes the name of the present claimant is
enclosed as Annexure ‘A’.
Societies on 07.01.1988. Thereafter, the differences between
the managing committee, the members and Mr. Anand Jain

were deepen. As a result of the same the then President Mr.
Anand Jain succeeded in getting the cessation of 27
members out of total No.99 from the office of the Registrar.
However, the claimant was not in any way connected with
those 27 members whose membership was ceased. The
claimant remained continuous and uninterrupted member
through out. The name of the claimant also appeared in all
voter list, audit reports, list submitted by the Administrator,
report submitted by the society and the report submitted by
the Registrar as a continuous member till date.
5. That the membership of the claimant was never
disputed in any manner. The draw of lots took place on 10 th
August, 1988 and as the claimant was one of the bonafide
members and continued to be so, his name was put in the
draw of lots. The claimant was allotted Flat No.601 (HIG)
category. A copy of the draw of lots which clearly shows that
the claimant was allotted the said Flat in the draw of lots is
being enclosed hereto as Annexure ‘B’.
6. That since there was mismanagement, records of the
society were being tampered, the then President Mr. Anand
Jain in collusion with his associates and there was
reasonable apprehension that the lawful members may not
get the Flats, if the said acts were allowed to be continued in
the same manner. The claimant along with other persons

filed the present writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court
the same was numbered as CWP No.3871 of 1991.
7. That on the other hand, the Registrar of Societies
appointed the Administrator under section 32 of the Coop.
Societies Act by superceding the managing committee
because of mismanagement and other such activities, which
were prejudicial to the interest of the members of the
Society. But the managing committee neither handed over
the records nor handed over the relevant files pertaining to
the members.
to prevent the tempering. The Hon’ble Bench also observed
Annexure ‘C’.

order 0is being enclosed hereto as Annexure ‘D’.
10. That the proceeding of the Local Commissioner
Court. However, a copy of the report is being enclosed
hereto for ready reference as Annexure ‘E’.
11. That despite the orders of the status-quo as well as
stay by the Hon’ble Lt. Governor in cases of other members
and also the restrain orders passed by this Court the than
President Mr. Anand Jain continued to permit certain
persons who occupy the Flats without authority under any
Law.
12. That it was revealed during the pendency of the writ
petition that the Society and the said Anand Jain allowed
one namely Shri Sushil Chadha who occupied the Flat
bearing No.601 which was allotted to the claimant in the
draw of lots dt.10.08.1988. The Hon’ble High court directed
that all persons who are illegal in occupation and possession
of the Flats be also impleaded as a party to the writ petition
by amended the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition
was amended and said Shri Sushil Chadha was also made
as a party/respondent No.38.
13. That though there was specific orders by the Hon’ble
High Court in the said writ petition that the said occupants
will not transfer, alienate, sale or otherwise create any third
party interest in any manner whatsoever but the said
respondent No.38/Sushil Chadha handed over the
possession of the Flat No.601 to Shri Rajesh Banga.
14. That on 12.08.2005, the Hon’ble High Court was
pleased to passed the following orders:
“Mr. R.P.Bansal, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Society says

that possession of Flat No.601 has been given to Shri D.C.
Maheshwari – petitioner No.1. Shri Maheshwari is present in
Court. He says that he has not received the possession of the
aforementioned Flat. The society to explain as to why the
possession of Flat No.601 has not been given to him and if the
same is not been given, the same may be given to him
forthwith.”
15. That in the said order to show the bonafidy for the
purpose of having the possession the Court had directed to

pay a sum of Rs.8 Lacs by deducting the amount already
paid as tentative value of the Flat subject to finalisation of
the cost. Though, the case of the applicant was entirely
different from the persons to whom the Hon’ble High Court
had directed to pay the said money to the Society vide order
dt.12.08.2005 but to avoid any controversy the claimant
without prejudice to his right to claim the refund had also
paid a sum of Rs.6,85,000/- to the Society as a sum of
Rs.1,15,000/- had already been paid. But despite that the
society failed to handover the possession of the Flat or to
place any document showing that the possession was ever
handed over to the claimant.
16. That thereafter, one Shri Rajesh Banga moved an
application before the Hon’ble High Court under Order 1
Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of the party the same was
registered as CM No.10111/2005 and the same was listed
before the Hon’ble Division Bench on 18.08.2005. The
Division Bench observed that the application was not
maintainable but granted status-quo on compassionate
ground that the wife of the applicant was sick. The copy of
the said order is enclosed as Annexure ‘F’.
17. That the respondent No.38 Shri Sushil Chadha in
response to the writ filed a reply in October 1997 that the
said Flat was allotted to him in 1991 and he was in
possession of Flat No.601 at the time of filing of the said

reply. On the contrary, the applicant Rajesh Banga claimed
that he took the possession by purchasing the Flat from Shri
Sushil Chadha in 1991 and is in occupation since then. A
copy of the reply is filed herewith as Annexure ‘G’.
18. That the President of the Society on behalf of the
Society filed an affidavit dt.11.05.2001 wherein it is
categorically stated that claimant was allotted Flat No.601.
The status of giving possession is not clear and one Shri
Rajesh Banga is staying over there, who is not a member of
the Society. The copy of the said affidavit is being filed
herewith as Annexure ‘H’.
19. That the respondent No.5 Mr. Anand Jain himself filed
an application with affidavit dt.06.01.2001 wherein it is
categorically stated that the respondent No.10 to 26, 28 to
38 are unauthorized occupant and even some of them have
not paid even a single penny on account of cost of Land and
cost of construction. A copy of the said application bearing
No.CM 309 of 2001 along with affidavit is being enclosed
herewith as Annexure ‘I’.
20. That even in the status report filed by the Society it is
categorically mentioned in Para No.31 that the claimant Shri
D.C. Maheshwari was allotted Flat vide draw of lots on
10.08.1988 but his Flat being No.601 (HIG) is in
unauthorized occupation of Mr. Rajesh Banga who alleged
himself before the Hon’ble Court to be the GPA of one Mr.

Sushil Chadha, however, as per the records of the Society
Mr. Sushil Chadha is not member of the Society.
21. That in reply to the application filed by the
unauthorized occupant of Flat No.601 (allotted to the
claimant) Rajesh Banga, the Society has filed its reply
dt.04.07.2006 along with affidavit clearly shows that the
occupant Rajesh Banga or the respondent No.38 Sushil
Chadha have forged and fabricated the documents and were
never member of the society and are in unauthorized
occupation of the Flat allotted to the claimant. A copy of the
same is enclosed hereto as Annexure ‘J’.
22. That the reply filed by the claimant to the application
filed by the unauthorized occupant of Flat No.601/Mr.
Rajesh Banga, is detailed in respect of the subjects
pertaining to allotment to the claimant and unauthorized
possession of the occupant Rajesh Banga. It is pertinent to
mention here that neither Sushil Chadha nor Rajesh Banga
has any valid documentary evidence or proof of his title or
claim either in the Society or in respect of the Flat in
question. A copy of the reply is being enclosed as Annexure
‘K’.
23. That the status report filed by the Registrar of the
Societies, on the direction of the High Court, also
categorically states that the occupant of the Flat No.601 is
unauthorized and illegal and the said Flat was allotted to the
claimant and he is entitled to have the possession. A copy of
the same is being enclosed hereto as Annexure ‘L’.
PRAYER
possession of the Flat for which the claimant had applied
and had paid the amount accordingly to which he is legally
entitled to be given at the earliest and that too at the
reasonable cost.
(ANIL AGGARWAL)
ADVOCATE
& CO.
NO.1
“18.08.2005
Present: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. S.S. Mishra for the applicant.
CM 1011/2005 in WP(C) No.3871/91
This is an application under Order 1 Rule
read with Section 151 CPC for impleadment on behalf
of one Rajesh Banga.
Issue notice for the service of non-
applicants, on filing of process fee by ordinary process
as well as by regd. AD cover, returnable on
26.10.2005, the date already fixed.
To our mind once the applicant is claiming
any rights under respondent no.38 and respondent
no.38 already being a party in the matter, this
application would not lie. However, in view of the
circumstances explained by Mr. Chetan Sharma,
learned counsel for the applicant, with regard to the
operation conducted on the wife of the applicant, we
direct that if the applicant is in possession of Flat
No.601, Maitri Apartments, he shall not be
dispossessed till the next date of hearing and to that
extent we modify our order dated 12.8.2005. Dasti”.
Registration No.392 (GH) All Disputes are Subject to Delhi Jurisdiction Phone:
Dated 19-12-1979
MAITRI NAGAR CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING

SOCIETY LTD.
(Registered under the Delhi Co-Operative Societies Act No.35 of 1972)
REGD. OFFICE : SECTOR 9, PLOT NO.29, ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
Ref. A/53/602/2001 Dated:

27.8.2001
To
Smt. Sudershan Kumari,
W/O Shri Ranbir Singh,
R/O Flat No.8, M.C.D. Flats,
Nimri Colony Phase-II,
Delhi-110052.
Sub.: HANDING OVER TO THE POSSESSION OF FLAT NO.602,

PLOT NO.29, SECTOR-9, MAITRI NAGAR CO-OP. GROUP
HOUSING SOCIETY.
Madam,
In pursuance of offer made by our counsel in the Hon’ble High
Court during the course of hearing of C.W.P. No.3871/91 titled as
‘D.C.Maheshwari & Ors. Vs. The Registrar Co-op. Societies & Ors.’ on
20.7.2001 that the society is ready to hand over the physical vacant
possession of Flat No.602 to you subject to deposit of dues as outstanding.
In this regard you are hereby informed that as per our records the
outstanding dues are as under:
Balance of construction money Rs.1,26,650/-.
Loan amount i.e. Principal + interest upto date as payable to
DCHFC Rs.2,25,771/-.
Hence you have to pay a total sum of Rs.1,26,650/- to the society
and you have to pay a sum of Rs.2,25,771/- to the DCHFC. You may be
at liberty to refix/settle the loan directly with DCHFC. However, you
should pay a sum of Rs.1,26,650/- to the society at earliest possible to

enable the society to hand over physical vacant possession of your flat
bearing No.602.
In case you fail to comply, it would be assumed that you are not
interested to take over the possession of the flat and Hon’ble High Court
will be apprised accordingly on the next date of hearing.
Sd/- Sd/-
SECRETARY
PRESIDENT
IN THE MATTER OF:
WP(C) No. 3871 OF 1991

….PETITIONERS
Versus

….RESPONDENTS
D.O.H.:
13.08.2007
INDEX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
S.NO. PARTICULARS COURT FEES PAGE
NO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
1. Claim/Brief Synopsis/
submissions on behalf
of Smt. Shanta Ajmera -
petitioner No.18.
2. ANNEXURE ‘A’
Copy of the list of 99 members
who are original/bonafide
members of the Society.
3. ANNEXURE ‘B’
Copy of the order dt.24.02.1998
whereby 27 members were
declared disqualified by the
Registrar.
4. ANNEXURE ‘C’
passed by Lt. Governor.
5. ANNEXURE ‘D’
Copy of the list of members
considered for the draw of
lots conducted on 10.8.88.
6. ANNEXURE ‘E’
Copy of order dt.9.12.88
passed by the Lt. Governor.
7. ANNEXURE ‘F’
8. ANNEXURE ‘G’
passed by the Registrar of
Societies.
9. ANNEXURE ‘H’
passed by the Lt. Governor,
Delhi.
10. ANNEXURE ‘I’
passed by the Hon’ble Division
Bench of this Hon’ble Court.
11. ANNEXURE ‘J’
12. ANNEXURE ‘K’
Copy of the Report dt.26.6.92
submitted by the Local
Commissioner – Sh. Arvind
Kumar Nigam.
13. ANNEXURE ‘L’
Copy of the list dt.9.11.93 of
members of the Society filed by
the Administrator.
14. ANNEXURE ‘M’
Copy of the Status Report
Filed by Mr. Kamaljeet
Advocate/officer of the Registrar
of Societies.
15. ANNEXURE ‘N’
Copy of the letter dt.27.8.01
whereby the possession was
handed over to Smt. Sudershan
Kumari Flat No.602.
16. ANNEXURE ‘O’
Copy of the CM No.309/01
with affidavit dt.6.1.01 filed
by the Respondent No.5/
Shri Anand Jain before this
Hon’ble Court.
(ANIL AGGARWAL)
ADVOCATE
& CO.
NO.18
IN THE MATTER OF:
WP(C) No. 3871 OF 1991

….PETITIONERS
Versus

….RESPONDENTS
D.O.H.:
13.08.2007
INDEX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
NO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
of Sh. Ratan Lal Jhawar -
petitioner No.20.
2. ANNEXURE ‘A’
3. ANNEXURE ‘B’
Registrar.
4. ANNEXURE ‘C’
5. ANNEXURE ‘D’
6. ANNEXURE ‘E’
7. ANNEXURE ‘F’
8. ANNEXURE ‘G’
Societies.
9. ANNEXURE ‘H’
Delhi.
Kumar Nigam.
the Administrator.
of Societies.
Kumari Flat No.602.
Hon’ble Court.
(ANIL AGGARWAL)
ADVOCATE
& CO.
NO.20
IN THE MATTER OF:
WP(C) No. 3871 OF 1991

….PETITIONERS
Versus

….RESPONDENTS
D.O.H.:
13.08.2007
INDEX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
NO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
of Sh. N.P. Mantri -
petitioner No.19.
2. ANNEXURE ‘A’
3. ANNEXURE ‘B’
Registrar.
4. ANNEXURE ‘C’
5. ANNEXURE ‘D’
6. ANNEXURE ‘E’
7. ANNEXURE ‘F’
8. ANNEXURE ‘G’
Societies.
9. ANNEXURE ‘H’
Delhi.
Kumar Nigam.
the Administrator.
of Societies.
Kumari Flat No.602.
Hon’ble Court.
(ANIL AGGARWAL)
ADVOCATE
& CO.
NO.19
IN THE MATTER OF:
WP(C) No. 3871 OF 1991

….PETITIONERS
Versus

….RESPONDENTS
D.O.H.:
13.08.2007
INDEX
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
NO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
of Sh. D.C. Maheshwari -
petitioner No.1.
2. ANNEXURE ‘A’
3. ANNEXURE ‘B’
4. ANNEXURE ‘C’
5. ANNEXURE ‘D’
6. ANNEXURE ‘E’
Commissioner – Shri Arvind
Kumar Nigam.
7. ANNEXURE ‘F’
passed in CM No.10111/05
by the Hon’ble Division Bench.
8. ANNEXURE ‘G’
Copy of the reply to the writ
filed by Respondent No.38/
Shri Sushil Chadha.
9. ANNEXURE ‘H’
Copy of the affidavit filed by
the president of the society
dt.11.05.2001.
Copy of the C.M No.309 of 2001
dt.06.01.01 filed by respondent
No.5/Shri Anand Jain.
Copy of the reply filed by the society
dt.04.07.06 to the application of
Shri Rajesh Banga/unauthorized
occupant of Flat No.601.
12. ANEXURE ‘K’
Copy of the reply filed by the claimant
to the application of the unauthorized
occupant of Flat No.601/Rajesh Banga.
Copy of the status report filed by
Registrar of Cooperative Societies
on the direction of this Hon’ble Court.
(ANIL AGGARWAL)
ADVOCATE
& CO.
ADVOCATES FOR THE
PETITIONER NO.1
AGGARWAL BHAWAN,
G.T.ROAD,
COMMISSIONER : APPOINTED BY DELHI HIGH
COURT IN THE CWP NO.3871/1991 TITLED AS
D.C.MAHESHWARI & ORS. VS. THE REGISTRAR
CO-OP. SOCIETIES & ORS.
IN THE MATTER OF:
WP(C) No. 3871 OF 1991

….PETITIONERS
Versus
….RESPONDENTS
CLAIM/BRIEF SYNOPSIS/
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF SHRI
D.C. MAHESHWARI.
FOR INDEX
PLEASE SEE INSIDE
(ANIL AGGARWAL)
ADVOCATE
NEW DELHI ANIL AGGARWAL & CO.
NO.1
AGGARWAL BHAWAN,
G.T.ROAD,
DATED: TIS HAZARI, DELHI-
110054.
IN THE MATTER OF:
WP(C) No. 3871 OF 1991

….PETITIONERS
Versus
….RESPONDENTS
N.P. MANTRI.
FOR INDEX
PLEASE SEE INSIDE
(ANIL AGGARWAL)
ADVOCATE
NO.19
IN THE MATTER OF:
WP(C) No. 3871 OF 1991

….PETITIONERS
Versus
….RESPONDENTS
RATAN LAL JHAWAR.
FOR INDEX
PLEASE SEE INSIDE
(ANIL AGGARWAL)
ADVOCATE
NO.20
IN THE MATTER OF:
WP(C) No. 3871 OF 1991

….PETITIONERS
Versus
….RESPONDENTS
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF SMT.
SHANTA AJMERA.
FOR INDEX
PLEASE SEE INSIDE

(ANIL AGGARWAL)
ADVOCATE
NO.18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.
C.M. NO. 4034 of 1992

IN
CIVIL WRIT NO. 3871 of 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
D.C. Maheshwari & Ors.

..PETITIONERS
Versus
The Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors.

..RESPONDENTS
REPORT OF THE LOCAL COMMISSIONER
1. WHEREAS vide orders of this Hon’ble Court
dated May 28, 1992 in the above noted Writ Petition I was
appointed as the Local Commissioner to visit the Maitri Nagar
Group Housing Society, Ltd., Plot No.29, Sector IX, Rohini,
Delhi-110083, inter-alia, to make a report as to the persons who

are in actual physical possession of the 99 flats constructed by
the said Society and matters allied thereto as indicated in the
order of the Court. I was further required by the order of the
Court to place looks on the flats which are unoccupied.
2. AND WHEREAS pursuant to a copy of the orders
of the Court made available a letter was addressed by the Local
Commissioner to the petitioners and the respondents and their
respective Counsels in the Writ Petition. All together 39 letters
were addressed to the parties intimating them that the Local
Commissioner proposed to implement the orders of this
Hon’ble Court on June 13, 1992 at 10.00 AM while requesting
the parties to make it convenient to be present at that time. A
copy of the letter sent is annexed hereto and marked as
ANNEXURE I.
3. AND WHEREAS on the said date, time and place
the persons mentioned in the Rough Report of Inspection
accompanied the Local Commissioner in the process of
identification of flats. The Rough Report and its typed copy are
collectively annexed as ANNEXURE II. The said rough report
may be read as an integral part of this report.
4. The 99 flats constructed by the society are
contained in 6 blocks. These 99 flats are of three categories,

namely, Low Income Group, Middle Income Group and Higher
Income Group. There are 12 Low Income Group flats, 44
Middle Income Group flats and 43 High Income Group flats.
For the sake of ready reference a rough site plan is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure III.
The LIG flats are as under:

Ground Floor Flat No. 41, 49, 50
Ist Floor -do- 43, 51, 52
nd
2 Floor -do- 45, 53, 54
rd
3 Floor -do- 47, 55, 56
Total:
12
The MIG Flats are as under:
Ground Floor Flat No. 1,2,9,10,17,18,25,26,33,34 &
42
Ist Floor -do- 3,4,11,12,19,20,27,28,35,36,44
2nd Floor -do- 5,6,13,14,21,22,29,30,37,38 &
46
3rd Floor -do- 7,8,15,16,23,24,31,32,39,40 &
48.
Total:
44
The HIG Flats are as under:

Ist Floor -do- 101,102,103,104,105,106
nd
2 Floor -do- 201,202,203,204,205,206
rd
3 Floor -do- 301,302,303,304,305,306
th
4 Floor -do- 401,402,403,404,405,406
th
5 Floor -do- 501,502,503,504,505,506
th
6 Floor -do- 601,602,603,604,605,606
th
7 Floor -do- 702,703,704,705
Total:43
Grand Total:
99
The Society in its Notice Board of flats has
renamed the said three categories of flats as under:
LIG Flats are being called MIG Flats

MIG Flats are being called HIG Flats
HIG Flats are being called Super HIG Flats.
5. That I had requested the photographer to take
photographs of the various sign boards of the society inside its
premises on the main gate as also of the
unoccupied/vacant/locked and unfinished flats of the Society.
Consequently photographs were taken of the various sign
boards, name boards of the Society as also of Flat
Nos.2,13,14,15,17,19,28,30,33,36,38,45,50,54,55,
303,403,502,601,602,603,704,703 & 705.
A perusal of the photographs of the sign boards of
the society indicate that the society is also being held out
in the name of Anand Apartment which name is
prominently painted on the premises. These photographs
of the name boards of the Society are from 30 to 42.
6. A Scrutiny of the flats reveals that Flat Nos. and
names had been painted in black paint on all the flats recently
except flat No.703 and 705 where marking were in green paint
and some other flats for instance 15, 303 where no name were
printed. The detailed factual position from the site inspect of
the flats is contained in Annexure IV annexed hereto along with
the photographs. This annexure indicates the flat No., the name
that has been painted near the entrance of the flat and the
remarks of inspection. The discrepancy between the name
painted at the entrance and the name on the sign board is
contained in Annexure V.
According to the two sign boards of Maitri Nagar
Cooperative Group Housing Society photograph of
which have been annexed herein before flat
Nos.1,4,17,18,30,33,36,38,41,45,50,54,55,403,602 and
605 have not yet been allotted nor occupied and their
possession is with the Society. However, in another sign
Board of Anand Apartment names appear against the said
flats.
7. Flat No.40 was vacant, unoccupied had an outer
door existing and their flat has been locked by the Local
Commissioner in terms of the orders of the Court. The keys of
the said flat are in the possession of the Local Commissioner
and shall be produced as and when directed. The details of the
lock placed and the manner of sealing are contained in the
rough report of inspection.

8. Apart from the above one flat that has been locked
by the Local Commissioner 22 flats do not have any doors and
consequently the orders of this Hon’ble Court directing the
Local Commissioner to place his own lock on unoccupied flats
could not be implemented. These flats are indicated separately
in the statement at Annexure VI. A majority of the other flats
are unfinished and unoccupied. Some are in the process of
being finished. These flats have been independently locked and
are indicated very distinctly in the said Annexure.
9. That an undated letter was sent by Shri Anand Jain
President of the Society was sent to the Local Commissioner
and was received in the office of the Local Commissioner on
14.6.1992. The same is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure VII.
10. The negatives of the photographs are contained in
a sealed envelop which is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure VIII. The summary of unoccupied flats is as order.
This summary relates to unoccupied flats upon the
understanding of the orders of this Hon’ble Court directing the
Local Commissioner to place locks on unoccupied flats,
consequently this summary relates to unoccupied flats whether

unfinished or in the process of finishing or furnished but
unoccupied.
Total No.
1. Flat locked by the Local Commissioner No.40
1
2. Flats without doors and obviously unoccupied
2,13,14,15,17,19,28,30,36,8,45,54,55,303,403,
22
502,602, 603,605,703,704,705.
3. Flats unoccupied without doors which do not

2
have provisions of locking 33, 50.
4. Flats locked & unfinished:

24,41,42,47,304,305,401,406,503,506,604,606.
12
5. Flats that are locked and state of the flat not known.
4,11,12,20,21,22,23,27,29,32,37,43,51,56,202.
15
6. Flats that are finished/furnished but unoccupied.

102,103,105,201 & 205.
5
---------------
--------
TOTAL
57
---------------
-------
Sd/-
(ARVIND K.NIGAM)
Advocate
NEW DELHI K-10, Hauz Khas
Enclave,
New Delhi-110016.
DATED: 26.6.92 Local Commissioner.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:

..PETITIONERS
Versus
Registrar Cooperative Society & Ors.

..RESPONDENTS
STATUS REPORT IN RESPECT OF W.P.(C)

NO.3871 OF 1991 ALONG WITH THE OTHER
CONNECTED CASES IN RESPECT OF MAITRI
NAGAR COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING
SOCIETY LTD.
This is pursuance to the order passed by the
Hon’ble Court on 06.09.2006 directing thereby to
file the status report on behalf of the Registrar
Cooperative Society. The Society was also directed
to file the status report on the entire position
regarding membership and allotment of flats since
1988 onwards.
I was directed being the Counsel for
Government of NCT of Delhi to submit the status
report in regard to the membership and allotment of
flats. In this regard I had sought the papers from

the Society as well as the Registrar Cooperative
Society. At the outset the following are the brief
facts and the status of membership in respect of the
above Society.
1. The total strength of the Society/membership
is 99.
2. The Society was formed in the year
1980’s. The final construction was completed in the
year 1988.
3. Out of total No. of 99 memberships of 27
nos. were ceased by the RCS vide order dated
24.02.1988 by the Assistant Registrar (North West)
on the grounds that 27 members were not domicile
of Delhi or having some other properties in Delhi.
4. The Society on 02.03.1988 enrolled
further 27 new members in place of 27 members
ceased by the RCS with in 6 days of passing of the
order by the RCS i.e. on 24.2.1988. However no
approval of the new members enrolled by the
managing committee was approved by RCS.

The memberships of 27 new inducted
members within the span of 6 days were never
approved by the Registrar Cooperative society. The
Society had not given enough notice to the RCS for
approval of the new members and as per the record
27 newly inducted members were illegal and
without any approval from the competent authority.
As per the records the members who had gone in
appeal and those cases, which were remanded and
reconsidered out of the old membership whose
membership were restored are the existing members
of the Society. As far as the 27 newly inducted
members are concerned they have no approval from
the RCS. Out of the 27 members which were
inducted on 2.3.1988 the name do not tally with the
present list of members for the reasons best known
to the Managing Committee.
Moreover the enrollment of newly inducted
members were done by society without involving
department and DDA.

5. 27 members whose memberships were ceased
filed the revision petition before the Hon’ble LG. who
then passed the order dated 01.08.1988 restraining
the society from enrolling any new membership and
the revision petition were remanded back to RCS on
09.12.1988.
6. Out of 27 ceased members, the membership of
10 members were restored by the RCS. However,
the membership of 17 members was again ceased
by the RCS on 27.08.1989.
7. Against the order of restoration of 10 members
the society went into the appeal before the L.G. The
appeal of society was not accepted and the
restoration of 10 members was upheld by the L.G.
vide order dated 25.06.1991.
8. 17 members whose memberships were ceased
also filed an appeal before the L.G. After going
through the records the Hon’ble L.G. remanded
back the cases of 16 members to RCS. However, 1
member namely Shri N.C. Goel was upheld vide
order-dated 22.08.1993. The RCS restored the

memberships of 16 ceased members vide its order
dated 15.06.1994 and 25.07.1997.
9. The society again went to the appeal before the
L.G. against the above said order before the
Financial Commissioner who upheld the order of
RCS.
10. The Society filed writ petition against the above
orders before the RCS.
11. That out of 10 members 5 members was given
the flats available. However, the rest 5 could not get
the flats by the order passed by Justice Vijender
Jain.
12. That it is also observed that one Shri Banga
who is occupation of flat No.601, is not a member of
the society but in occupation of flat, which as per
the records available belongs to one Shri D.C.
Maheshwari, who is one of the petitioners in Writ
Petition No.3871 of 1991.
13. The Managing Committee’s decision to enroll
the 27 new members are illegal not in conformity
with the provisions of DCS Act and Public Rules.

The Managing Committee has cited the reason of
shortage of funds as a reason for enrolling the
members but they have acted in a manner contrary
to the DCS Act and Rule. If the Managing
Committee was running short of funds the problem
could have been solved by taking loan from
designated government agencies and not by
appointing/inducting new members within the
period of 6 days, which include the period of
advertisement and notice to the Registrar
Cooperative Society, which is against the Act and
Rules. It is further submitted that sufficient notice
is required to be given to the Registrar Cooperative
Society to adjudicate the matter. The office of RCS
and DDA were not involved in draw of lots in respect
of the newly inducted members of the society in the
year April 1990.
14. That the RCS and the Financial
Commissioners has passed the orders for restoring
the membership of the those members whose
memberships were ceased earlier.

The report is submitted herewith without
prejudice.
Sd/-
(KAMAL DEEP)
Advocate
G-46, Saket,
Basement
New Delhi-110017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW
DELHI.
C.W. NO.3871 OF 1991

..PETITIONERS
Versus
R.C.S. & Ors.

..RESPONDENTS
Affidavit of Pt. Banwari Lal Sharma S/O Shri Mool

Chand Sharma R/O Flat No.16, Maitri Nagar Co-op.
Group Housing Society, Sector IX, Rohini, New
Delhi.
I, Pt. Banwari Lal, the deponent above named do

hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. That I am the President of the Maitri Nagar Co-
op. Group Housing Society Ltd. and am competent
to file the present affidavit.
2. That I state that the present managing
committee of the society was elected on 12.3.2000
and the office bearers elected on said date are
holding the posts to which they were elected for the
first time.
3. That I state that most of the records of the
society have not been handed over by Shri Anand

Jain and the respondent No.1 has not been able to
recover the records from him.
4. That I state that as per the records of the
society available in the office of the society,
petitioners 5, 7 to 9, and 11 to 17 have been allotted
flats and possession handed over and they have no
grievance on this account.
5. That I state that as per the records of the
society available in the office, petitioner No.1 has
been allotted flat No.601. The status of giving
possession is not clear. At present one Shri Rajesh
Banga is in possession of the flat. Shri Rajesh
Banga is not a member of the society. In what
capacity he is residing in the flat is not known.
6. That I state that the society had allotted semi
finished flats to the members at the following price:
LIG Flat Rs.1.28 lacs.

MIG Flat Rs.1.685 lacs.
HIG Flat Rs.2.485 lacs.
7. That I state that the position of the payments
made by 16 persons who were held to be
disqualified as being members of the society vide

order dated 27.9.1989 passed by the respondent
No.1 has already been stated to this Hon’ble Court.
The that the position of payments made by the 10
members who were held to be qualified for being
enrolled as members vide said order is detailed in
Annexure A to this affidavit.
8. That I state that the out going managing
committee, decided to initiate proceedings to expel
all defaulting members of the society. The
defaulting members were issued notices on
1.1.2001 for replying to the default charges against
them. The notices were sent at the addresses
available in the records of the society by UPC.
9. That I state that in the general body meeting
held on 18.3.2001, the general body of members of
the society passed a resolution expelling the
defaulting members. Copy of the minutes of the
general body are annexed as Annexure B to this
affidavit. I state that as per the rules, the approval
of the respondent No.1 has been sought for
expulsion of the defaulting members and the matter

is pending consideration before the respondent
No.1.
10. That I state that as per information of the
society, petitioner No.2 has died.
11. That I state that vide notification No.F.47. legal
dated 22.4.1997, rule 24 of the Delhi Cooperative
Societies Rules was amended and it was made
mandatory that to be eligible for being enrolled as a
member of a housing society in Delhi, a person
must be a resident of Delhi. I state that the
respondent No.1 has issued a directive on 3.1.2001
which is annexed as Annexure C to this affidavit.
As per said directive it is mandatory for all housing
societies to amend their bye laws to give effect to the
amended rule 24.
12. That the following 4 flats were allotted in the
draw of lot held by DDA on 10 th August 1988 in the
name of following members, but these flats are
locked and remain unoccupied. Moreover the
payment towards the cost of flats has also not been

fully received by the Society. The status is given
below:
SR. NO. FLAT NO. CAT. NAME OF ORIGINAL ALLOTTEE
1. 43 C Shri Phool Singh Payment

received
payment
including
share money
received
by the society
has
fully refunded.
2. 45 C Shri Kanwar Sain Agarwal - do -
3. 47 C Shri Muhsi Ram Sharma - do -
4. 702 A Shri Ashok Jain Paid

Rs.85,000/-
only out of
total cost
of the Flat
Rs.2,48,500/-
till date.
No claimant has ever approached the Society
till date to make the payment to the Society for
taking over the position.
13. That the following 5 flats were allotted to the
persons mentioned below at Column No.4 but the
then management without getting approval of the
MC, General Body & the ROCS, changed the
membership and issued share certificates to the
persons shown in column No.5 & 6 which is against
norms of the Delhi Co-op. Society Act and the Bye

Laws of Society. The status of payment against
each Flat is given below in Column No.7 as per
record available to the present M.C. (As handed over
by the outgoing M.C.).
SR. FLAT CAT. NAME OF ORIGINAL NAME OF

PAYMENT
NO. NO. ALLOTTEE TRANSFERER/
STATUS
NAME OF PRESENT
OCCUPANT
1. 11 B Shri Madan Lal Mr. Saroj Goyal/ Full

Agarwal
payment made
2. 21 B Shri Jaswant Gupta Mr. M.P.Garg/ - do -

Shri M.P.Garg
3. 51 C Smt. Dropti Devi Mr. Ajay Sharma/ - do -

Mr. Abrol
4. 53 C Mr. Bal Kishan Tyagi Mr. Sanjay Kumar

Payment not
Mrs. Rita Arora
received by
the
Society
as per
record.
5. 501 H Mrs. Tara Devi Mr. Man Mohan

- do -
Singh/Mr. Man
Mohan Singh
Sd/-
DEPONENT
EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT NO. 3871/19991
AMENDED PETITION
IN RE:
Shri D.C.Maheshwari & Others

..PETITIONERS
Versus
The Registrar, Co-operative

Societies, Delhi & Others
..RESPONDENTS
IN THE MATTER OF:
THE AFFAIRS OF THE MAITRI NAGAR CO-OPERATIVE

GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY
AND IN THE MATTER OF:
THE DELHI CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1972 AND

THE RULES FRAMED THEREUNDER
AND IN THE MATTER OF:
“WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227, OF THE
CONSTITUTIO OF INDIA PRAYING FOR:-
(1) AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION TO THE REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES TO GET THE ACCOUNTS OF THE SOCIETY
AUDITED BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR.

(2) ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION, INCLUDING A WRIT OF MANDAMUS,
DIRECTING THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES TO ENSURE ELECTIONS TO THE
MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3
SOCIETY ARE HELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
RULES OF THE SAID SOCIETY AND BYE-LAWS UNDER
THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT AND WITHIN THE
TIME FRAMED PRESCRIBED THEREIN OR THE ACT.
(3) A WRIT OF MANDAMUS COMMANDING

THE RESPONDENTS, NAMELY, REGISTRAR
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND DELHI
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO HOLD
FRESH DRAW OF LOTS WITH RESPECT TO
THE ENTIRE REMAINING 30 FLATS
(EARLIER DRAW OF LOTS HAVE ONLY
BEEN CONFINED TO 69 FLATS).
(4) DIRECT AND CAUSE TO DIRECT THE
REGISTRAR AND RESPONDENT NO.3
SOCIETY TO HAND OVER THE
POSSESSION OF THE SAID FLATS TO THE
MEMBERS SUCCESSFUL IN THE DRAW OF
LOTS.
DIRECTION, INCLUDING A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ALLEGED
MEMBERSHIP OR ALLEGED ALLOTMENT
OF FLATS BY MR. ANAND JAIN OR ANY
ONE ELSE WITH A DIRECTION TO
RESPONDENTS 10 TO 38 AND/OR ANY
ONE OF THEM TO HANDOVER THE
POSSESSION TO THE SUCCESSFUL
MEMBERS IN THE DRAW TO BE HELD BY
DDA.
DIRECTION TO RESPONDENT NO.10 TO 138 TO HAND
OVER THE VACANT AND PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF
THE FLATS IN THEIR ILLEGAL POSSESSION TO THE
RECEIVER APPOINTED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT OR
TO A LOCAL COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY THIS
HON’BLE COURT WHO, IN TURN, MAY HAND OVER
THE POSSESSION AS PER DRAW OF LOTS.
(7) A WRIT OF PROHIBITION RESTRAINING
RESPONDENTS 10 TO 38 THEIR AGENTS, SERVANTS
AND/OR ANYONE CLAIMING THROUGH THEM FROM
TRANSFERRING, ALIENATING OR PARTING WITH
POSSESSION OR FROM ENCUMBERING THE FLATS IN
ANY MANNER ANYWISE.
DIRECTION INCLUDING A WRIT OF MANDAMOUS
COMMANDING RESPONDENT NO.1 THE REGISTRAR
COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ITS OFFICERS AND
AGENTS TO GET THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE RESTORED AND/OR TO
PROSECUTE THE SAME TO ULTIMATE CONCLUSION
AND TO TAKE ALL STEPS THAT ARE NECESSARY IN

RELATION TO RESPONDENT NO.3 AS ARE
WARRANTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE SOCIETIES
ACT, THE RULES FRAMED THEREUNDER AND/OR THE
DIRECTIONS AS ISSUED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT
FROM TIME TO TIME.”
TO
THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION
JUSTICE OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT
THIS HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONERS

ABOVE-NAMED.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the petitioners are all members of the Matri Nagar Co-
operative Group Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to
as the “Society”). A Society duly registered under the Co-
operative Societies Act, 1972 and the Rules framed
thereunder (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” and “Rules”
respectively). The petitioners are also the citizens of India
and are vested with various constitutional and statutory
safeguards and are also interested in the well-being and
proper conduct of business and/or the affairs of Respondent
No.3, “Society”.
2. That the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 are the authorities who
have been vested with enumerable powers and have
corresponding duties and obligations to ensure the smooth
and proper functioning of Co-operative Societies and further

to keep a statutory check on such Societies registered under
the Act, to ensure that such societies discharge their duties
and obligations as envisaged under the said Act, the Rules
framed thereunder and the Bye-Laws.
3. That the petitioners are aggrieved in the manner in which the
affairs of the respondent No.3 Society are being conducted
by the Managing Committee, especially by Shri Anand Jain,
its President, who are set on bringing the whole concept of a
Co-operative Society to naught. For malafide and ulterior
reasons the elections have been unduly delayed for the past
five years. In the meantime, the Managing Committee has
been indulging in various illegal and malafides acts
prejudicial to the interest of the society and have been
persistently negligent in the performance of the duties
imposed on it by the Act and/or rules and the Bye-laws.
Evidently the Managing Committee has been able to persist
in its malafide and prejudicial acts with the active connivance
of the office of the Registrar.
Briefly stated the facts giving arise to the present
petition are as follows:-
4. That respondent No.3 Society is a Group Housing
Society which was duly registered with the Office
of respondent No.1, the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Delhi in 1979. The society was

essentially formed by its Members, with the object
of providing flats to its members, ninety nine in
all, after acquiring land for the said purpose, from
the D.D.A. or any other local authorities.
Consequently the Society was allotted land by the
D.D.A. at Plot No.29 in Sector IX, Rohini, Delhi in
1982-83, the possession of the land was taken
over by the society on or around 30th June, 1984.
5. That the Society accordingly submitted building
plan to D.D.A. for construction of ninety nine flats
for its members. The foundation stone was laid
on or about 13th April, 1986. However, till date,
the Flats are not complete in all respects and
majority of the flats are still not fit for
inhabitation.
6. That the affairs of the Society, as envisaged in the Act,
Rules and the Bye-laws is to be managed by a Managing
Committee which is to be elected by the General Body of
Members. As contemplated by the Act, the Rules framed
thereunder, as well as the Bye-laws of the Society, the
elections of the Managing Committee are to be held
annually.
7. That till December, 1986 the year in which the
last election of the Managing Committee was held,

the elections were held as per schedule. The
problem arose when the Managing Committee
elected on 21st December, 1986, took office. The
Office-bearers, elected and appointed in the said
elections along with their associates have
thereafter placing obstacles in one manner or the
other, so as to avoid elections from taking place
and also remain in office for illegal, malafide and
ulterior reasons.
8. That after the elections of the Managing
Committee, held on 12th December, 1986 the next
election were due in December, 1987. On the
persistent demand by the majority of members,
the General Body of Members in its meeting
convened on 20th December, 1987 resolved to hold
fresh elections, for the formation of a new
Managing Committee and also fixed 17 th January,
1988 for the calling of a General Body Meeting to
hold elections on that date. A copy of the
minutes of the Meeting held by the General Body,
on 20th December, 1987 and its true English
Translation is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE –
P.1.
9. That, however, no elections were held on 17th
January, 1988 or in fact, till date, despite clear
statutory provisions in this regard, no elections
have taken place.
10. That during the course of the meeting held by the
General Body of members on 20th December, 1987
when some of the members aired their views
against the conduct of the President of Managing
Committee and his associates, Shri Anand Jain
along with his associates as well as Members who
were in league with him, abused number of
members and further threatened them with dire
consequences. All records maintained by the
Society were subsequently removed by the
President, Shri Anand Jain, from the registered
office to unknown place. In an illegal meeting
held by the Managing Committee, on 21st
December, 1987, the Secretary of the society, Shri
R.P. Jain, an Office-bearer who refused to work in
league with the President and his associates, was
suspended.
11. That aggrieved in the manner in which the
Managing Committee was conducting the affairs of

the Society, a delegation of about 20 such
aggrieved members, including the petitioners, met
the then Registrar, Co-operative societies on 7 th
January, 1989. After hearing the grievances of
the members, the Registrar of Cooperative
Societies was pleased to order on the file:-
(a) that the elections of the Society which had
falled due would be conducted by the
Department’ and
(b) that the Bank operations of the Society be
temporarily stopped, so as to ensure that there would be no
manipulations or tempering of the funds of the Society.
Accordingly, the then Registrar appointed Shri S.K.
Panchal, as an Election Officer vide his Order dated
12.1.1988.
12. That surprisingly, the office of the Registrar
obviously at the behest as well as in league with
Shri Anand Jain, the president of the Managing
Committee, revoked the order passed on 7th
January and 12th January, 1988. Instead, by
orders dated 14th January, 1988 appointed Shri
P.C. Kathuria as an Election Officer as well as an
Inquiry Officer. Copies of the said orders passed

and conveyed by the Assistant Registrar on 14 th
January, 1988 are annexed hereto as ANNEXURE
– P.2 AND P.3 respectively.
13. That despite the orders passed by the Registrar on
7th January, 1988, the Bank operations of the
Society were not stopped.
There were neither any new facts nor new
material before the Registrar to superseed his
earlier orders. The subsequent orders passed by
the Registrar on 14th January 1988 were obviously
the outcome of the subsequent meetings of Anand
Jain and his associates, who were all along
looking for opportunities to strengthen their hold
on the Society.
14. That the said Shri Anand Jain along with his associates
seeing that appointment of the enquiry officer could be
turned to their advantage so as to remove those members
who were not willing to act according to their illegal wishes.
Apparently the members of the managing Committee were
able to convince the said election officer to join hands with
them.
Thereafter, the Election Officer appointed vide orders
dated January 14, 1988, also colluded with Shri Anand Jain.
Instead of holding the elections after holding a proper

enquiry as contemplated by Section 55 of the Act, the said
election/enquiry officer, illegally and malafidely assumed the
powers of the Registrar and issued show cause notices to 27
members of the Society it was alleged that a complaint had
been received against the said 27 members, that they
incurred disqualification in terms of Rule 25 of the Rules, on
the ground that they are not residents of Delhi, as such they
were called upon to appear before the enquiry officer and file
documentary proof of their residence. Three of the twenty
seven members were alleged to own houses in Delhi. In
fact, neither of the twenty seven members were issued the
alleged show cause notices, since the same were retained
on the file of the department and not even sent to the said
twenty seven members, nor were the said members given
an opportunity of any hearing.
15. That on the receipt of the interim report of the Enquiry
Officer, the then Registrar, by way of an order passed on
February 24, 1988, ceased the membership of the said
twenty seven members. Even the said order of cessation
passed by the Registrar on February 24, 1988 were neither
issued to the said members by the office of the Registrar nor
any intimation of the same was conveyed to them by the
Managing Committee of the Society. A copy of the order
passed on February 24, 1988, communicated by the
Assistant Registrar to the President/Secretary of the Society
is annexed hereto as Annexure – P.4.

16. That on coming to know about the orders passed with
respect to the cessation of their membership, the said
members, being aggrieved by the same, challenged the said
order by preferring Revision petitions to the then Lt.
Governor, Delhi under section 80 of the Act. Vide order
dated June 1, 1988, the Lt. Governor was pleased to stay
the operation of the impugned order and was further pleased
to inter-alia restrain the Society from enrolling any new
members. A copy of the order passed by the then Lt.
Governor, Delhi on June 1, 1988 is annexed hereto as
Annexure P.5.
17. That subsequently vide orders dated 9th December,
1988 the then Lt. Governor, Delhi accepting the
petitions filed by the aggrieved members remanded
the case back to the Registrar, directing the
Registrar to initiate a fresh inquiry into the
eligibility of 27 members as well as of the
remaining members. It is pertinent to state that
the Lt. Governor pointed out that the action of the
Registrar was full of infirmities and that there
appeared to be commission of various
irregularities. The Lt. Governor Delhi while
remanding the case back to the Registrar was also
pleased, inter-alia, to order the status quo be

maintained regarding the position and status of
the parties and other like persons till the dispute
is finally adjudicated upon by the Registrar. The
Lt. Governor also ordered that since the election of
the Society had not yet been held, the same
should be completed immediately after the
outcome of the dispute before the Registrar. A
copy of the said order dated 9th December, 1988 is
annexed hereto as Annexure P.6.
18. That in the meanwhile the President of the
Managing Committee of the society, Shri Anand
Jain, along with his stooges in blatant disregard
and violation of the aforesaid order passed by the
Lt. Governor, Delhi, illegally enrolled 28 outsiders
as Members by accepting large sums of money as
premium. One of them subsequently passed
away leaving 27.
Thereafter surprisingly, the then Managing Committee
ceased the Membership of majority of the said 27 members
and in their place enrolled 27 other members by accepting
large sums of money as premium. A list detailing particulars
of the illegally enrolled members is being annexed hereto as
Annexure P.6A.
In fact the Society had also submitted a list of
Members to the Registrar which comprises of 109 members
including the said illegally enrolled 27 Members. The details
of some of the illegally enrolled members who are in illegal
possession of flats are given as under:
S.NO. Names Flat No.

1. Smt. Tarlochan Kaur 203, HIG
C/O Shri Tajinder Singh.
2. Smt. Sudesh Devi Gupta 505, HIG
W/O Shri D.K. Gupta.
3. Smt. Inresh Aggarwal 503, HIG
4. Shri K.C. Aggarwal 705, HIG
5. Shri Jaybir Singh Kalra 5, MIG
6. Shri Akshay Dogra 12, MIG
The above information has been collected by the
Petitioners from the records of the Delhi Electric Supply
Respondents No.10 to 15 have even got electricity
connection in their names. The illegal allotment of the flats
to said Members have not even been a subject matter of
draw of lots.
That the then Managing Committee has even
allotted/given possession of flats to the number of other
persons. However, the petitioners at present are not aware
of the particulars of all persons who are illegally occupying
flats and the petitioners reserve their right to file additional
affidavit as and when the particulars of such persons are
made aware to the petitioners.
19. That in the terms of the aforesaid orders passed by the Lt.
Governor, Delhi, the then Registrar Shri K.S. Mehra, after

completing inquiry in respect to the membership of the 27
members commenced an inquiry with regard to the
remaining members. Instead of co-operating with the
Registrar, the Managing Committee filed a review petition
before the then Lt. Governor, Delhi obviously with the
intention to delay the enquiry proceeding being conducted by
the Registrar, in terms of the orders passed by Lt. Governor,
vide orders dated December, 9, 1988 the Managing
Committee, through its President. The alleged grievances
of the president were inter-alia that Registrar had refused to
permit the society to defend its case, the said petition was
accordingly disposed of by the Lt. Governor vide orders
dated January 18, 1989, with the observation that the
President had failed to put anything on record to show that
the Registrar had refused participation of the society in the
proceedings pending before the Registrar. A copy of the
said order is annexed hereto as Annexure P.7.
20. That Managing Committee thereafter filed another
review application but this time through one Shri
Mahesh Chand. It is pertinent to mention here
that obviously the review petition filed by the said
Shri Mahesh Chand was filed at the behest of
Managing Committee, particularly, Shri Anand
Jain, the President, since Shri Mahesh Chand is
the brother-in-law of Shri Anand Jain.

Subsequently the said Shri Mahesh Chand sought
to withdraw the review petition and accordingly
vide orders dated 19th march, 1989, passed by the
then Lt. Governor, Delhi, Shri Romesh Bhandari,
the review application was dismissed, as
withdrawn. A copy of the said order dated 28 th
March, 1989 is annexed hereto as Annexure P.8.
21. That thereafter Shri Sagar Chand, the father of the
said Shri Mahesh Chand, another relative of Shri
Anand Jain and also at the behest of Shri Anand
Jain and his associates filed a suit for declaration
and permanent injunction before the Court of
Learned Senior Sub Judge, Delhi challenging the
order of the Hon’ble Lt. Governor, Delhi dated 9 th
December, 1988, with regard to 72 members was
passed without jurisdiction. Vide orders dated
19th April, 1989 the learned Sub Judge, Delhi was
pleased to stay the operation of the said order
passed by the Hon’ble Lt. Governor, Delhi dated
9th December, 1988 with regard to the
examination by the Registrar as to the position
and status of the rest of the members.

It is pertinent to state here that the said suit filed by
Shri Sagar Chand was filed by the same Advocate who
subsequently represented the society in the same suit. The
Connivance of the said Shri Sagar Chand with the Managing
Committee of the Society is writ large on the face of the
record. Both Shri Sagar Chand and the Managing
Committee have been working ‘hand in glove’, to ensure the
continuance of the said stay order passed by the learned
Sub Judge, Delhi which is still subsisting even till date.
22. That vide orders dated 27th September, 1989 the
then Registrar Shri K.S. Mehra, passed an order
restoring the membership of the ten members out
of the said 27 members. Copy of the order dated
27th September, 1989 passed by the then Registrar
is annexed hereto as Annexure P-9.
23. That the Managing Committee challenged the said
order of the Registrar before the Hon’ble Lt.
Governor, Delhi by way of an appeal which was
ultimately dismissed by the Hon’ble Lt. Governor
and the order by the Registrar was confirmed vide
orders dated 25th June, 1991. Copy of the order
dated 25th June, 1991 passed by the Hon’ble Lt.
Governor, Delhi is annexed hereto as Annexure P-
9a.
24. That remaining 17 members who, according to the Registrar,
attracted disqualification under Rule 25 also filed appeals
against the orders of the Registrar claiming cessation of their
membership.
In the said appeals the order passed by the Registrar
was set aside with respect to 16 members but their cases
were remanded back to the Registrar for re-consideration.
Copy of the order passed by the Lt. Governor dated
22.8.1993 is annexed hereto as Annexure P.16.
On remand, the Registrar re-considered the matter
and restored the membership of 16 members of the Society
vide his order dated 15.6.94.
25. That on persistent demands made by the members,
including the petitioners, the then Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Shri K.S. Mehra, vide office orders dated 15th
November, 1988 appointed Shri H.P. Sharma as Election
Officer to conduct the election of the Managing Committee.
Accordingly, an agenda notice was issued to the members of
the Society dated 27th July, 1989 by the said Election Officer,
hereby calling a meeting of the general body of the members
on 19th August, 1989. However, in the meanwhile, the
Managing Committee obtained an order of stay of the
election from the Hon’ble Governor, Delhi by filing a revision
petition, a frantic effort to avoid elections. The alleged
grievance of the Managing Committee was that the Registrar
had not completed the enquiry with respect to the 27

members nor disclosed when contacted whether any
enquiries have been made by him in regard to the said 27
members or not. The said petition was accordingly
disposed of vide orders dated September 27, 1989 in view of
the receipt of the report, from the office of the registrar with
the observations that the elections of the Society were long
overdue and were being held up on one pretext or the other.
The Lt. Governor, further observed that the elections should
be held without further delay. Accordingly, the Lt. Governor
vide his said order dated September 27, 1989 directed the
Registrar to immediately conduct the elections as per rules.
A copy of the said order dated September 27, 1989, passed
by the Lt. Governor, Delhi is annexed hereto as Annexure P-
10.
26. That accordingly, the Election Officer appointed by the
Registrar, issued an agenda notice dated October 27, 1989
calling the holding of a General Body Meeting of the Society
on November 18, 1989 for the purpose of holding the
elections of the Managing Committee. A copy of the said
notice issued by the Election Officer is annexed hereto as
Annexure P-11.
27. That once again in order to avoid the elections from being
held, the Managing Committee adopted another ploy. At
the behest of Shri Anand Jain, the President, a suit for
Declaration and Permanent Injunction was filed in the Court
of the Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, being Suit No.456/89, by

one Shri Nipun Kumar, alleging that though he was a valid
members of the Society, he had not received any
communication about the elections nor was his name
included in the election rolls, scheduled to be held on 18th
November, 1989. In effect what was sought was stay of the
said elections.
It is pertinent to state at this juncture that Shri Nipun
Kumar was one such member of a total of 27, who had been
illegally enrolled by the Managing Committee despite the
orders of the Lt. Governor in this regard.
28. That vide orders dated November, 3, 1989 learned Sub-
Judge, on an application filed by the said Nipin Kumar,
stayed the operation of the notice dated 27.10.1989. Once
again the Managing Committee had achieved their motive to
stay the elections.
It is pertinent to add as stated above that the then
Managing Committee could not have enrolled any new
Members including Shri Nipun Kumar, in any event Shri
Nipun Kumar has no Locus standi to continue the
proceedings before the Civil Court.
29. That surprisingly, for reasons best known to the department,
the office of the Registrar did not choose to contest the case.
Only a mere submission was made that since the learned
Court did not possess jurisdiction in view of Section 93 of the
Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, the department did
not wish to contest the case.

30. The subsequently, by judgment dated January 14, 1991, the
suit filed by the said Shri Nipun Kumar dismissed by the
learned Sub-Judge by inter-alia, holding that the suit was not
maintainable in view of Section 93 of the Co-operative
Societies Act 1972. A copy of the said judgment passed by
the learned Sub-Judge, Delhi is annexed hereto as
Annexure P-11A.
31. That subsequently on February 1, 1991, the said Shri Nipun
Kumar filed an application seeking review of the said
judgment passed by the learned Sub-Judge dated January
14, 1991. Vide Orders dated March 21, 1991, the learned
Sub-Judge, Delhi was pleased to adjourn the case to May 1,
1991, pending service of the election officer. In the
meantime, the parties were directed to maintain status quo.
32. That in the meantime, the said Nipun Kumar also filed an
appeal being RCA 28/91 in the Court of the Senior Sub-
Judge, Delhi against the said Judgment passed by the
learned Sub-Judge, Delhi dated January 14, 1991.
33. That vide orders dated March 11, 1991, the said appeal was
registered and the file of the case pending before the
Learned Sub-Judge, was summoned, Notice was directed to
issue to the opposite parties.
34. That thereafter, having achieved his ulterior motive, the said
Shri Nipun Kumar has not even cared to take appropriate
steps with regards to service of the respondents in the
appeal, and the matter is still pending.

The implication of the orders passed in the cases filed
by the said Shri Nipun Kumar, is that once again, the
Managing Committee has been able to stall the otherwise
much overdue elections.
35. That in the meantime, the Petitioners have been repeatedly
approaching the Registrar as well as making several written
complaints, informing the Registrar of the illegal activities of
Shri Anand Jain and the other members of the Managing
Committee, and have also repeatedly requested that the
Registrar to look into the affairs of the Society. Copies of
some of the complaint is sent to the Registrar, by the
petitioners dated December 20, 1989 and January 8, 1990
and July 24, 1991 are being annexed hereto collectively as
Annexure P-12.
36. That ultimately vide order dated May 30, 1990, the Managing
Committee of the Society was superseded and in its place
Shri K.J.R. Burman was appointed as an Administrator. A
copy of the said order dated May 30, 1990 passed by the
Joint Registrar under Section 31(1)(5) of the Act is annexed
hereto as Annexure P-12A.
37. That thereafter, the Managing Committee through Shri
Anand Jain, the President filed an appeal before the Lt.
Governor, challenging the aforesaid order of supersession
dated May 30, 1990. Though the appeal is still pending
adjudication before the Lt. Governor however, no stay has

been granted in respect to the said order of removal of the
Managing Committee.
38. That when Shri Anand Jain and his associates could not
succeed in getting the operation of the order of supersession
stayed, from the Hon’ble Lt. Governor, the Managing
Committee once again adopted its usual ploy by filing a suit.
The suit being Suit No.373/90 was filed before the Court of
Shri M.S. Rohilla, Additional District Judge (Vacation Judge)
who was pleased to stay the order dated May 30, 1990 by
an ad-interim ex-parte injunction, on June 11, 1990. This
time the suit was filed by one Shri Anil Jain, who is the real
brother of Shri Anand Jain. The said suit has since been
dismissed.
A copy of the order dated January 8, 1991, is
annexed hereto an Annexure P-13.
39. That vide order dated 13th of August 1991, the order of
supersession passed on May 30, 1990, was directed to
continue thereby extending the period of the term of the
administrator for a further period of one year i.e. from
December 1, 1990, to November 30, 1991. A copy of the
aid order dated August 13, 1991, is annexed hereto as
Annexure P-14.
40. Vide order dated August 23, 1991, this Hon’ble Court was
pleased to stay the operation of the said order dated August
13, 1991. This time the case was filed by Smt. Manju Jain,
an office bearer of the Managing Committee and who also

happens to be the sister of Shri Anand Jain. It is pertinent
to mention at this juncture that the said Smt. Manju Jain has
already incurred disqualification in terms of Rule 25. Since
she owns a house bearing No.144-Ag, Shalimar Bagh, New
Delhi on a plot which has been leased out in her name DDA.
A case in this respect under Rule 25 is pending with the
Registrar for a considerable time.
That by a subsequent order dated 12th of November,
1991, this Hon’ble Court has been pleased to vacate its
earlier order dated 23rd August, 1991 and has also been
pleased to direct the society to handover the charge to the
Administrator. However, the Society has yet not handed-
over charge to the Administrator nor has the Society handed
over the records of the Society to the administrator.
That by order dated 16.12.91, this Hon’ble Court was
pleased to dismiss the writ petition filed by Smt. Manju Jain
being Civil Writ No.2659/91, holding that the petitioners have
not approached the Hon’ble Court with clean hands. It was
further held by this Hon’ble Court that interim injunction
which was granted vide order dated 11.6.90 by the
Additional District Judge in the suit filed by Mr. Anil Jain
challenging the order of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, whereby the Management Committee was
superseded by an Administrator, was without jurisdiction.
Order dated 16.12.90 is annexed to the writ petition as
Annexure P-17.
That Smt. Manju Jain challenged the order dated
6.12.91 of Hon’ble High Court by filing Special Leave
Petition in the Supreme Court of India being SLP
No.3338/92. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated
8.4.91 was pleased to dismiss the petition of Smt. Manju
Jain and another, holding that the case was not fit for
interference by the Hon’ble Court’s power under Article 136
of the Constitution. Copy of the order dated 8.4.92 passed
by Hon’ble Supreme Court is annexed hereto as Annexure
P-18.
41. That a bare perusal of the Audit Report submitted by the
Chartered Accountant for the years 1987-88 and 1988-89
would bare ample testimony of the various illegalities and
gross irregularities being committed by the then Managing
Committee. These illegalities as well as the irregularities
have also been repeatedly brought to the notice of the
Registrar by several complaints and are sufficient to warrant
the supersession of the Managing Committee.
These illegalities and irregularities are inter-alia
enumerated below:
(a) That the Managing Committee had illegally enrolled
28 members despite orders of the Lt. Governor,
details of which are given in Annexure P-6A.
Thereafter the then Managing Committee seized the
Membership of a majority of the said illegally enrolled
members and in their place enrolled the number of

other persons as members by accepting large sums
of money as premium. That without holding the draw
of lots the then Managing Committee has even
allotted flats to a number of the illegally enrolled
members including respondents 10 to 38 as detailed
in the memo of parties.
(b) As per Rule 46(2) the Society is to submit to the
Registrar annually a copy of the receipt and payment
account, profit and loss account and Balance Sheet of
the Society. However, the Managing Committee has
persistently failed to discharge this obligations.
(c) The Managing Committee are not maintaining any
stock registers in respect to material such as steel
and cement etc. issued to the Contractors.
(d) The Annual General Meetings are not being held in
terms of Section 29 read with Rule 51(3), nor has the
Society sought the approval of its accounts.
(e) Large sums of money are being debited to the
accounts of the Society by the members of the
Managing Committee towards alleged conveyance
expenses incurred by them without providing any
details.
The Managing Committee are guilty of various
irregularities under the Income Tax Act. Returns are
not being filed etc. These irregularities would attract

penalty which would obviously have to be ultimately
borne by the members of the society.
(f) The Managing Committee are intentionally not
complying with Audit Reports from time to time nor
are submitting the same to the Registrar.
(g) The elections to the Managing Committee had not
been held after 12 December 1986 till 31st October
1993. The Annual General Meetings have also not
been held and no elections have been held though it
is annual process after 31st October, 1993 and the
Managing Committee continues to rein over the
Society violating the provisions of Cooperative
Societies Act and the Rules.
(h) The Managing Committee are deliberately stalling the
holding of Annual General Meetings of the Society for
approval of accounts and consideration of the Audit
Report for the last several years.
(i) Rule 46(2) has not been complied with, with regard to
the submission of the annual returns to the Registrar
for the last several years.
(j) Neither confirmation is being obtained from the
contractors, not are valid receipts are being obtained
from the contractors in respect to alleged payments
made to them.
(k) The accountant being retained by the Managing
Committee is not properly qualified.

(l) The condition regarding minimum paid staff as per
rule 49(2) is not being complied with.
(m) The bills received with respect to the telephone
installed at the residence of Shri Anand Jain are being
illegally debited to the accounts of the Society.
(n) A new Bank Account was opened with the Azadpur
Branch of Syndicate Bank and is being operated by
Shri Anand Jain, bearing SB A/C. No.112900. A sum
of over Rs.15 lakhs was deposited in the said account
by Shri Anand Jain, however the said amount is being
shown in the suspense account in the account books
of the Society.
(o) The Managing Committee has availed of a bridge
loan to the tune of 15 lakhs rupees from Jain Co-
operative Bank Ltd., Darya Ganj without the required
prior approval of the General Body.
(p) The cheques alleged to have been issued to 27
members, was done without sufficient funds at the
disposal of the Managing Committee.
(q) Shri Anand Jain and his associates in the Managing
Committee have persistently manipulated the
proceedings of the General Body as well as the
Managing Committee.
(r) Mr. Anand Jain and his associates are
misappropriating the funds of the society at large.

(s) The records maintained by the society including the
account books are being manipulated by the
members of the Managing Committee. One glaring
example is that of a member, Shri Kanwar Sain
Aggarwal who had deposited a total sum of
Rs.71110.00 but only a sum of Rs.56610.00 has been
credited in the books of accounts.
(t) In view of the various irregularities committed by the
Managing Committee the class of the Society has
come down from category ‘A’ to category ‘D’.
(u) Shri Shyam Lal Jain, the Present Secretary of the
Managing Committee has illegally occupied a vacant
unallotted flat No.25 (on the ground floor) although as
per the draw of lots held by the DDA he was allotted
Flat No.24 which is located on the 3rd floor.
(v) The Managing Committee have been issuing demand
notices to the members of the Society for large
amounts without any details or basis. Nor are the
members being given statements of accounts despite
several and repeated requests.
(w) The Managing Committee has been guilty of violating
the directives of the Registrar in respect to the draw of
lot held. Upto the date of the draw held on August
10, 1988 the required ‘C’ and ‘D’ forms have not been
obtained from the DDA.

(x) Meetings of the Managing Committee have not been
held according to law and the proceedings have not
been recorded by hand and have not been signed in
the proceeding register, which is a clear violation of
Rule 65(2)(3) and (5) of the Delhi Co-operative
Societies Rules 1973.
(y) All the records of the society have been shifted from
its registered office to the residence of Shri Anand
Jain illegally and without the approval of the General
Body. Directions of the Registrar regarding
intimation of the Managing Committee’s resolutions in
respect of resignations and enrolments of members
has not been complied with.
(z) The Managing Committee has illegally added a
number of outsiders as members which is evident
from the list prepared by Shri Anand Jain and
submitted to the Election Officer on 3rd November,
1989. Against a total strength of 99 members, 109
members have been shown.
(aa) The category of the flat of Shri Kanwar Sain Aggarwal
has been illegally changed by Shri Anand Jain from
M.I.G. to L.I.G. in the draw of lots held, though the
said Shri Kanwar Sain Aggarwal was allotted an
M.I.G. category flat and has also deposited the
construction amount of an M.I.G. flat as demanded by
the Society from time to time.

That Shri Kanwar Sain Aggarwal filed an
arbitration case under Section 61 of Delhi Co-
operative Societies Act, 1962 against the above
illegalities by the Society and its then President, Shri
Anand Jain. The learned Arbitrator Shri K.C. Rathi,
Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies by an
Award dated 6.2.93 has held that Shri Aggarwal is
entitled to an MIG category flat instead of LIG
category as claimed by the Society. A copy of the
Award dated 6.2.96 is annexed hereto as Annexure
P-10.
(bb) The members of the Society have been threatened
with expulsion through demand notes by increasing
the cost of the flats by 25% without any basis or
details and without any approval of the General Body.
Even Shri Anand Jain and his associates have been
persistent defaulters.
(cc) Large sums of moneys have been wasted by the
Managing Committee towards frivolous litigation.
(dd) The handicapped quota was not considered by the
Managing Committee, in the draw of lots. A
complaint filed by Shri Virender Kumar Jain, whose
Father is physically handicapped and dependent on
his son, is still pending with the Registrar.

(ee) Despite orders passed by the Jt. Registrar
(Arbitration), the Managing Committee handed over
possession of flats to several members.
(ff) Shri Shyam Lal Jain, the present Secretary of the
Society, who is also in league with Shri Anand Jain is
incurring disqualification of Membership, as he is also
a Member of another Co-operative Society, namely
Dharam Kunj Co-operative Society Limited. Copies
of the audit reports submitted by the chartered
accountant of the Society for the years 1987-88 and
1988-89 are annexed hereto collectively and are
marked as Annexure P-15.
(gg) That Shri Niranjan Pal Singh, petitioner No.8 filed a
complaint against the then President of the Society,
Shri Anand Jain, Shri Shyam Lal Jain and 5 others on
the ground that Shri Anand Jain and others is
conspiracy with each other forged the records of the
society and showed that Mr. Singh has resigned from
the Society on 18.7.89, but the fact of the matter is
that Mr. Singh never resigned from the membership of
the Society. The complaint was lodged with the
Model Town Police Station, on which an FIR was
registered which is pending adjudication before Shri
S.S. Handa, Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari,
Delhi. Petitioner No.8 has also filed an arbitration
case against the Society and others which is also

pending adjudication before the Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, Delhi.
(hh) That the petitioner No.1, Shri D.C. Maheshwari came
to know that the flat No.601, which was allotted to him
was being transferred by Shri Anand Jain and others
to non-members of the Society. Petitioner No.1 filed
a suit being Suit No.42/92 in the Court of Subordinate
Judge, Delhi, praying for a decree for permanent
injunction against the defendants note to transfer the
said flat to anybody else and also prayed for other
reliefs. In this suit, the learned Subordinate Judge
was pleased to order status quo to be maintained by
the parties. In spite of that order possession of the
said flat was illegally given by Shri Anand Jain to Shri
Sushil Chadda and /or to Shri Rajesh Banga. The
said suit was withdrawn by petitioner No.1 on 30.8.95
with liberty to file appropriate proceedings.
42. That respondents 10 to 38 except Mr. Anil Aggarwal (since
deceased), Mr. Pradhuman Kumar and Mr. Anil Kumar, are
not members of the Society. These three were, however,
never allotted any flats. Flats in their occupation continue to
from part of common pool as they did not form part of draw
of lot held in 1988.”
43. The remaining respondents 10 to 38 were never enrolled as
members of the Society. There were 99 members and
society had provision to allot only 99 flats. No one was

even authorized by the society to induct any new members.
Moreover, their induction being contrary to the order of the
Lt. Governor are void.
They are also in unauthorized occupation of flats.
They have no right, title or interest therein. They could not
have been enrolled as members of the Society, specially
when the membership regarding 27 members was
subjudice. The alleged resolutions passed or membership
given to respondents 10 to 38 (except the three mentioned
above), being contrary to law confers no right. They are in
occupation and possession of the flats in connivance and
collusion with Mr. Anand Jain and others.
In the alternative, the petitioners submit that since the
membership of the 26 members had been restored by the
judicial decision and which has become final, the said 26
persons have to be given priority over any other persons
listed or having become members thereof.”
44. That respondents 10 to 38 are not entitled to remain in
possession or occupation of the flats in their respective
occupation as the same is unauthorized and illegal. The
said respondents be directed to vacate the flats and the
possession thereof be directed to be handed over to the
Receiver appointed by this Hon’ble Court who in turn be
directed to hand over the possession of the flats to the
members, who are allotted the same, after the draw of lots
takes place.
45. That at the time of the institution of the writ petition no
election to the Society’s Managing Committee was held.
However, on 31.10.93 an election to the Managing
Committee was held. The term of the said Managing
Committee also expired in 1994. No steps are being taken
by respondent No.3 to follow the mandate of the Society
Bye-laws and hold periodical elections.
The Registrar, Co-operative Societies is failing in his
statutory duty in not compelling the Society and its office
bearers to carry out the mandate as contained in the
statutory provisions and to hold the elections strictly in
accordance with Co-operative Societies Act and the Bye-
laws of the society. There is a failure of and omission on his
part to carry out the obligation cast on him. The power
conferred by the legislature on him are not being utilized.
No action for non fulfillment of law is being taken.
46. Thus, the registrar-co-operative society be directed to
ensure holding of elections on annual basis and on the
failure of the society or its officers to do the needful, action in
law must be taken.”
47. That under Rule 46(2) of the Co-operative Societies Act
respondent No.3 Society is obligated to submit a copy of the
Receipt & Payment, Profit and Loss Account and Balance
Sheet of the Society to the Registrar. The petitioner has not
come across the said compliance by the Society. The
Annual General Meetings are not being held in terms of

Section 29 read with Rule 53. There is no approval of the
accounts of the Society.”
48. That as stated above the original members enrolled by the
Society and also approved by the Registrar are 98, out of
which 69 members have already been declared successful
in draw of lots held in 1988. Possession of some of the flats
to the Members have not been given as per the draw of lots
held in 1988. Respondents No.1 to 4 are bound in law to
ensure that the Members who were successful in the draw of
lots in 1988 be handed over possession of their respective
flats.
49. That Respondents No.1 to 4 have no justification whatsoever
in not holding the draw for the remaining 30 flats and to allot
the same to the 29 members (26 members whose
membership was restored by the Registrar as detailed above
and the three members who were dropped from the list of
dropees at the last moment). The remaining one flat may
be reserved to be allotted to person whom this Hon’ble Court
deems fit.”
50. That the petitioners being members of the Respondent No.3
had paid the dues to the Society for construction of their flats
but are not able to utilize them. This Hon’ble Court would
take judicial notice of the fact that a person who is a member
of the Co-operative Society cannot acquire another property
and/or membership of another Co-operative Society. The
petitioners are persons with limited means and also do not

have means at their disposal to acquire another property. In
any event they are vested with a right in law and having paid
the consideration for the flats to use, enjoy their respective
flats in their own right.
Defendant No.4 accordingly is bound to hold a draw
of lots for the remaining 30 flats and the action of the
respondents 1 to 4 in not holding the draw of lots despite
being put to notice is causing serious prejudice to the
petitioners and the remaining members. The action is
clearly arbitrary and whimsical.”
51. The petitioners understand that the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies had filed a Criminal complaint against Anand Jain
and others on their failure to hand over the records of the
Society and other criminal actions committed. The said
criminal complaint has been dismissed for want of
prosecution on behalf of the Registrar. That action of public
authority has to be informed with reason. In the present
case it is clear that Respondent No.1 is not pursuing the
remedies available to it in law and is omitting to carry out its
duties as conferred by the statute. It is clear case of
collusion between officers of defendant No.1 and Anand Jain
& Others. An appropriate order and direction is, therefore,
necessary to be issued to respondent No.1 to apply to the
Hon’ble Court where the Criminal complaint was filed and
pursue the same till its trial disposal.

52. That Shri Tek Chand, Shri Pawan Kumar Jain and Shri
Gurinder Singh being the petitioner Nos.5, 7 and 17 have
been given possession of flat Nos.30-B, 33-B and 36-B
respectively after the new Management was elected on
31.10.93. Later on possession of flats were also given to
Smt. Chandrawati, Shri Naveen Kumar Jain, Shri Virender
Kumar Jain, Shri V.K. Jain and Shri Rakesh Kumar Marwah
being the petitioner Nos.9, 11, 13, 14 & 16, of flat Nos.54C,
14B, 55C, 17B & 403A respectively. All of them were
successful members in the draw of lots held on 10.8.88.
53. That the petitioners have not filed any similar writ in any
other Hon’ble High Court in India or in the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India.
54. That the copies of the Annexure filed with the writ petition
are true copies of the originals.
55. That in light of the above circumstance, it is therefore most
respectfully prayed, that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to issue;
(1) AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION
TO THE REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
TO GET THE ACCOUNTS OF THE SOCIETY
AUDITED BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR.
DIRECTION, INCLUDING A WRIT OF MANDAMUS,
DIRECTING THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIEITES TO ENSURE ELECTIONS TO THE

MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE RESPONDENT
NO.3 SOCIETY ARE HELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE RULES OF THE SAID SOCEITY AND BYE-
LAWS UNDER THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
ACT AND WITHIN THE TIME FRAMED
PRESCRIBED THEREIN OR THE ACT.
(3) A WRIT OF MANDAMUS COMMANDING THE
RESPONDENTS, NAMELY, REGISTRAR CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND DELHI
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO HOLD FRESH
DRAW OF LOTS WITH RESPECT TO THE ENTIRE
REMAINING 30 FLATS (EARLIER DRAW OF LOTS
HAVE ONLY BEEN CONFINED TO 69 FLATS).
(4) DIRECT AND CAUSE TO DIRECT THE REGISTRAR
AND RESPONDENT NO.3 SOCIETY TO HAND
OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE SAID FLATS TO
THE MEMBERS SUCESSFUL IN THE DRAW OF
LOTS.
(5) AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION,
INCLUDING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING
THE ALLEGED MEMBERSHIP OR ALLEGED
ALLOTMENT OF FLATS BY MR. ANAND JAIN OR
ANY ONE ELSE WITH A DIRECTION TO
RESPONDENTS 10 TO 38 AND/OR ANY ONE OF
THEM TO HANDOVER THE POSSESSION TO THE

SUCCESSFUL MEMBERS IN THE DRAW TO BE
HELD BY DDA.
(6) AN APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION
RESPONDENT NO.10 TO 38 TO HAND OVER THE
VACANT AND PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE
FLATS IN THEIR ILLEGAL POSSESSION TO THE
RECEIVER APPOINTED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT
OR TO A LOCAL COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY
THIS HON’BLE COURT WHO, IN TURN, MAY HAND
OVER THE POSSESSION AS PER DRAW OF
LOTS.
(7) A WRIT OF PROHIBITION RESTRAINING
RESPONDENTS 10 TO 38 THEIR AGENTS,
SERVANTS AND/OR ANYONE CLAIMING
THROUGH THEM FROM TRANSFERRING,
ALIENATING OR PARTING WITH POSSESSION OR
FROM ENCUMBERING THE FLATS IN ANY
MANNER ANYWISE.
DIRECTION INCLUDING A WRIT OF MANDAMOUS
COMMENDING RESPONDENT NO.1 THE
REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ITS
OFFICERS AND AGENTS TO GET THE
COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE RESTORED AND/OR TO
PROSECUTE THE SAME TO ULTIMATE

CONCLUSION AND TO TAKE ALL STEPS THAT
ARE NECESSARY IN RELATION TO RESPONDENT
NO.3 AS ARE WARRANTED BY THE PROVISIONS
OF THE SOCIETIES ACT, THE RULES FRAMED
THEREUNDER AND/OR THE DIRECTIONS AS
ISSUED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT FROM TIEM TO
TIME.”
Such other Writs/Orders and/or directions as this Hon’ble
Court deems fit and proper I the interest of justice may also be
passed.
FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONERS
SHALL IN DUTY BOUND EVERY PRAY.
Sd/-
PETITIONERS
THROUGH
Sd/-
CHANDHIOK &
ASSOCIATES
NEW DELHI
DATED:
IN RE:
Shri D.C.Maheshwari & Others ..PETITIONERS
Versus
Registrar Co-operative Societies, Delhi ..RESPONDENTS

& Others
AMENDED MEMO OF PARTIES
1. Shri D.C. Maheshwari,

D-25, C.C. Colony,
Delhi-110007.
2. Shri Ram Partap Goel,

R/O 11993, Kucha Pati Ram,
Bazar Sita Ram,
3. Shri R.K. Kothari,

C/O East India Syntex Ltd.,
403, Laxmi Bhawan,
72, Nehru Place,
New Delhi.
4. Shri Prem Prakash Bansal,

R/O House No.23, Pocket F-18,
Sector VIII, Rohini, Delhi-85.
5. Shri Tek Chand Jain,

Flat No.30-B, Maitri Apartments,
Plot No.29, Sector-IX, Delhi85.
6. Shri Richipal Jain,

R/O B-504, Meera Bagh,
Outer Ring road,
New Delhi-110041.
7. Shri Pawan Kumar Jain,

Plot No.29, Sector-IX, Rohini,
Delhi-110085.
8. Shri Niranjan Pal Singh,

R/O 5/39, New Birla Lines,
Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007.
9. Smt. Chandrawati,
Flat No.54-C, Maitri Apartments,
Delhi-110085.
10. Shri Pawan Kumar Aggarwal,

S/O Shri Shyam Lal Aggarwal,
46, Ram Nagar, Pahar Ganj,
New Delhi-110055.
11. Shri Naveen Kumar Jain,

Delhi-110085.
12. Smt. Sudershan Kumari,

House No.2900, Peepal Wali Gali,
Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110006.
13. Shri Virender Kumar Jain,

Delhi-110085.
14. Shri V.K. Jain,

Delhi-110085.
15. Shri Kanwar Sain Aggarwal,

1460, Raj Garh Colony,
Delhi-110031.
16. Shri Rakesh Kumar Marwah,

Flat No.403-A, Maitri Apartments,
Delhi-110085.
17. Shri Gurender Singh,

Delhi-110085.
..PETITIIONE
RS
Versus
1. Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Delhi,
Old Court Building, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Lt. Governor of Delhi,

Raj Niwas, Raj Niwas Marg,
Delhi-110054.
3. The Maitri Nagar Co-operative

Group Housing Society,
Delhi-110085,
Through the Administrator.
4. Delhi Development Authority,

through the Vice-Chairman,
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.
5. Shri Anand Jain,

Flat No.202, Maitri Apartments,
Delhi-110085.
6. Shri Sagar Chand,

C-2/125, Ashok Vihar,
Phase-II, Delhi-110052.
7. Shri Nipun Kumar,

J-58-D, L.I.G. Flats,
Phase-I, Ashok Vihar,
Delhi-110052.
8. Smt. Manju Jain,

44, Maitri Apartments,
Delhi-110085.
9. Shri Sham Lal Jain,

Delhi-110085.
10. Smt. Sudesh Devi Gupta,

Delhi-110085.
11. Shri K.C. Aggarwal,
Delhi-110085.
12. Shri Jaybir Singh Kalra,

Delhi-110085.
13. Smt. Indresh Aggarwal,

Delhi-110085.
14. Shri Akshay Dogra,

Delhi-110085.
15. Smt. Tarlochan Kaur,

Delhi-110085.
16. Shri Jai Shree Garg,

Delhi-110085.
17. Shri G.K. Garg,

through his tenant Shri S.K. Arora,
Delhi-110085.
18. Shri G.K. Sharma,

Delhi-110085.
19. Shri Banwari Lal Sharma,

Delhi-110085.
20. Smt. Promilla Aggarwal,

through General Power of Attorney,
Shri Rajesh Gulati,
Delhi-110085.
21. Shri T.K. Gupta,

Shri Virender Aggarwal,
Delhi-110085.
22. Shri Subash Singla,

Delhi-110085.
23. Shri Anil Kumar,

Delhi-110085.
24. Shri Rakesh Bhasin,

Delhi-110085.
25. Shri Parveen Singla,

Delhi-110085.
26(a).Smt. Rekha Aggarwal,

W/O Late Shri Anil Aggarwal.
26(b). Master Ashish Aggarwal,

S/O Late Shri Anil Aggarwal.
26(c).Baby Arunima Aggarwal,

D/O Late Shri Anil Aggarwal.
ALL RESIDENT OF:

Delhi-110085.
27. Shri Parduman Kumar,

Delhi-110085.
28. Shri B.S. Sarna,

Flat No.004A, Maitri Apartments,
Delhi-110085.
29. Shri Arun Singla,

Delhi-110085.
30. Shri H.R. Lal,

Delhi-110085.
31. Smt. B.K.Chadha,

Delhi-110085.
32. Smt. Laxmi Devi Madan,

Delhi-110085.
33. Shri K.M.Tanwar,

Delhi-110085.
34. Shri K.R.Punia,

Delhi-110085.
35. Dr. (Mrs.) Manju Singla,

Delhi-110085.
36. Smt. Kanta Anand,

Smt. Bimla Devi,
Delhi-110085.
37. Shri C.L.Aggarwal,

Delhi-110085.
38. Shri Sushil Chadha,

through his Representative,
Shri Rajesh Banga,
Delhi-110085.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Sd/-
CHANDHIOK &
ASSOCIATES
NEW DELHI COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONERS
DATED:
IN RE:
Versus

& Others
27.11.2009
Present: Mr. Kailash Vasudev, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Anil Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.P. Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Mahajan and Mr.
Sheetesh Khanna, Advocates for Respondent No.3.
CM No.13354/2005
in WP(C) No.3871/1991
By means of this application, a Review of the Order dated
12.8.2005 is prayed for. The applicants were impleaded in the Writ
Petition by virtue of Order dated 21.8.2001 passed in CM
No.7092/2001. The major relief prayed for by them was thereafter
declined vide order dated 12.8.2005 on the ground that the prayer
of the applicants “suffers from delay and laches and no good cause
has been shown in the application as to why these three petitioners
chose to wait for 10 years”. There is, therefore, no conflict between
the orders dated 21.8.2001 and 12.8.2005. The later order
declines relief on the merits of the application, post impleadment of

the present applications. If the applicants are aggrieved with that
order, they may take appropriate legal recourse.
No ground for Review made out. Dismissed.
WP(C) No.3871/1991
Case be listed as per Roster on 18.12.2009.
Sd/-
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.
Sd/-
REKHA SHARMA, J.
November 27, 2009
IN RE:
Versus

& Others
12.8.2005
Present: Mr. S.S. Jain for the appellant.
Mr. R.P.Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Mahajan, Mr. P.D.
Sharma and Mr. Prabhat Ranjan for the respondent.
Mr. C.Mohan Rao for the respondent/DDA.

Mr. Vaibhav Dang for the respondent
Nos.7,10,11,12,13 to 15.
C.M. No.6635/2005 with WP(C) No.3871/1991
We have heard the matter. Initially the petitioner has
arrayed 17 members as petitioners.
To cut short the controversy and without prejudice to the
rights and contentions of the parties we have asked the learned
counsel for the petitioner as to who were the members who were
not allotted the flats.
Shri D.C. Maheshwari – petitioner No.1, Shri Ram Pratap
Goel – respondent No.2 has died. However, the legal
representative have not been brought on record. The application
is pending. Notice Counsel for the respondent accepts notice.

The legal representatives as taken on the application be
brought on record in place of petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.3 is
Shri R.K. Kothari. Petitioner No.4 is Shri Prem Parkash Bansal.
Petitioner No.6 is Shri Rich Pal Jain. Petitioner No.10 is Shri
Pawan Kumar Aggarwal and petitioner No.13 is Shri Kanwar Sain
Aggarwal who is stated to have been allotted Flat No.45.
Learned counsel for the petitioner says that
subsequently, an amended memo of parties was filed.
There was, as a matter of fact, another amended memo
of parties filed by the petitioner in July, 1997. In that
amended memo of parties the names of the petitioners
were up to serial No.17, as in the original petition which
was filed in the year 1991. It seems that during the
pendency of the petition, another amended memo of
parties was filed on 28th August, 2001, where the name
of petitioner No.8 Smt. Shanta Ajmera, petitioner No.19
Shri Narayan Prasad Mantri and petitioner No.20 Shri
Rattan Lal Jhawar were incorporated. We do not want
to pass any order in relation to these petitioners who
were subsequently brought on record after 10 years of
filing of the original petition which was filed in the year
1991. Their action suffers from delay and latches and
no good cause has been shown in the application as to
why these three petitioners chose to wait for 10 years.

Mr. R.P. Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the Society
says that possession of Flat No.601 has been given to Shri D.C.
Maheshwari – petitioner No.1. Shri Maheshwari is present in Court.
He says that he has not received the possession of the
aforementioned flat. The Society to explain as to why the
possession of Flat No.601 has not been given to him and if the
same is not been given, the same may be given to him forthwith.
The possession of Flat No.502 be given to the legal
representatives of petitioner No.2. Possession of Flat No.704 be
given to Shri R.K. Kothari – petitioner No.3. The possession of
Flat No.703 be given to Shri Richpal Jain – petitioner No.6.
Possession of Flat No.303 be given to Shri Pawan Kumar Aggarwal
– petitioner No.10. Let all the petitioners who have been allotted
these flats, pay to the Society a sum of Rs.8 Lacs aftger
reconciliation of the amount which has already been paid by the
petitioner to the Society. That payment shall be without prejudice
to the rights and contentions of the parties, subject to the final
consideration by this Court. The amount shall be paid by the
petitioners in terms of our order passed above within a period of
four weeks. Once, the amount is paid to the Society, the Society
will handover forthwith the flats as stated above to the above
petitioners.
In the meanwhile, the Society to calculate the
demand in relation to these flats and the same will be
brought on the next date of hearing in Court.

Renotify on 26th October, 2005.
Sd/-
MR. VIJENDER JAIN.
J
MS. REKHA SHARMA.
J.
12.08.2005
IN THE COURT OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR,
DELHI.
Cases Nos. 49/1988-CA to 61/1988-CA, 63/1988-CA to

65/1988-CA, 73/1988-CA, 74/1988-CA, 91/1988-CA
to 95/1988-CA and 97/1988-CA. Rev. Petition U/S 80.
Among.
(1) Richhpal Jain Versus Registrar, Coop. Societies
& Anr.
(2) Kulwant Rai Jain Versus - do -
(3) Savitri Jain Versus - do –
(4) Saroj Jain Versus - do –
(5) Ram Parkash Shorewala Versus - do –
(6) Krishna Devi Versus - do –
(7) Sham Lal Versus - do –
(8) Rattan Lal Jhawar Versus - do –
(9) Mehar Chand Versus - do –
(10) Ram Kishor Kothari Versus - do –
(11) Jai Chand Jain Versus - do –
(12) Prem Parkash Bansal Versus - do –
(13) Zile Singh Versus - do –
(14) Savitri Devi Jain Versus - do –
(15) Santosh Jain Versus - do –
(16) Pawan Kumar Aggarwal Versus - do –
(17) N.C.Goyal Versus - do –
(18) Ram Partap Goyal Versus - do –
(19) Suresh Chand Goyal Versus - do –
(20) Shanta Ajmera Versus - do –

(21) Narain Parshad Versus - do –
(22) Vinod Kumar Versus - do –
(23) R.D.Gupta Versus - do –
(24) Nirmal Jain &

Others Versus - do –
(PETITIONERS) (RESPONDENTS)
Represented by:- Shri R.S.Tomar, Adv.

and Shri Rakesh Munjal, Adv. for
appellants and Shri R.N.Bhardwaj, Adv.
for Society, Shri P.R.Sen Gupta, ARCS
for RCS.
ORDER DATED 1.6.1988
All the above cited cases came up for
hearings before me today. During the course of
arguments, the learned counsels for the
respondents raised a point that the present revision
petitions under section 80 of the Delhi Co-operative
Societies Act are not maintainable since the order
dated 24.2.1988 being an administrative order
having been passed by the Registrar in his
administrative capacity. On this point, the learned
counsels for the appellants submitted that since this
order being contrary to law deserves to be brushed
aside by invoking the provisions of section 80 of the
Delhi co-operative Societies Act since it has
snatched the valuable rights of the appellants who
were not given opportunity of being heard. The
learned counsels for the appellants than read out
the ingredients of section 80 of the Act and said that
where no appeal lies, in that case revisional power
under section 80 of the Act warrants to be
exercisable by this court. The learned counsels for
the appellants than confronted with the import of
rule 25 of the rules and further it was made clear to

them that the order as challanged is an
administrative order. They in reply submitted that
this order in all the cases cannot be deemed to be
an administrative order since there are a number of
rulings on this point. Then they said that there is a
Supreme Court ruling on this very specific point and
in case sometimes is given then the same could be
produced. There was no objection on behalf of the
respondents on this point. The learned counsels
then made a request that the impugned order be
stayed from execution till further orders and the
society has also decided to enroll new members in
place of the appellants and arrange to refund the
amount, as such it should be restrained from such
actions. There is no rebuttal argument on this point.
2. Keeping in view the above, it is hereby ordered that the
society should not enroll new members and further
restrained from refunding the amount to the appellants
till the next date to be fixed. The impugned order should
not be implemented till next date. This order has been
announced in open court and the parties have been made
known about it. Cases fixed for hearing on 6.7.1988 at

3.30 P.M. There is no need to issue the present order.
This order shall govern all the cases.
Announced. Sd/-
(H.L.KAPUR)
Lieutenant Governor, Delhi.
Dt.2.6.1988.
IN THE COURT OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR,
DELHI.
Case No.49 of 1988-CA. Revision petition under section 80

of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972.
PRINTED
Between
Shri Richpal Jain S/O

Shri Fateh Chand Jain,
R/O B-504, Meera Bagh, Delhi.
….Petitioner
Versus
1. Registrar, Cooperative Societies,

Delhi Administration, Delhi.
2. Maitrinagar Cooperative G.H.Society
Limited, Plot No.29, Sector-9,
Rohini, Delhi.
….Respondents
Present:-Shri R.S.Tomar, Adv.

Shri Rakesh Munjal, Adv.
Mrs. Rashmi Gultai, Adv.
Shri Ramesh Chand Gupta, Adv.
Shri R.N.Bhardwaj, Adv.
Shri B.M.Sethi, ARCS for RCS.

(ROMESH BHANDARI,LG)
This is a revision petition under section 80 of the
Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, hereinafter
referred to as the Act, wherein the petitioner through his
counsel challenged the order of the Registrar,
Cooperative Societies being communicated to the
President of the Society in pursuance of letter

No.F.47/392/GH/Coop/1078 dated 24.2.1988, wherein
the appellant alongwith twenty six other members of the
society have been found to have inquired disqualification
in term of rule 25 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies
Rules. It is borne out from the record that the Registrar
has appointed an Inquiry Officer to inquire into certain
allegations in terms of Section 55 of the Act. The
Election Officer was also appointed to hold the fresh
elections. Now the poisition revealed from the papers is
that the inquiry officer submitted his report on 12.2.1988
in an interim form. The complaint which led the
appointment of Inquiry Officer was that some members
of the society were not residing in Delhi and they had
furnished wrong affidavits in respect of their being
residing in Delhi. The Inquiry Officer, it appears to have
reported that notices were given to such persons which
appear to have been received unserved with the reports of
the bailiff that service could not have been done since the
addresses were not found residing in Delhi in some cases
and in some cases the addresses were found to be of not
residential one. There was also a complaint that three
members have had their own property in Delhi. The

Inquiry Officer has also found 11 cases in which false
affidavits were found to have been furnished which do
not bear the signature of the deponents through attested
by the Oath Commissioner. This report was considered
by the Registrar and on its basis he held 27 members
having had incurred disqualification in terms of rule 25
of the Rules. In the present case so also in other cases
the main grievance of the petitioners is that the Registrar
has failed to give notice to them before passing or
holding their having incurred disqualifications. Further
there is also a contention that no notice was issued to
them and whatever the notices as stated to have been
given by the Inquiry Officer to them would not be held to
be valid notice in the eye of law and further their service
in a short space of time could not at all be possible. It
was pleaded during the course of arguments that the
enrolment of the 27 persons had been after satisfaction of
the ingredients of the bye-laws read with the Act and
Rules. It was then pleaded that the action of the
Registrar cannot be said to be free from any doubt rather
it can be in collusion with the other opposite party. It
was pleaded that no person who has been held to have

incurred disqualification made known about the
allegations and the accusations which are brought against
him. It is asserted that the impugned order was passed
without affording any reasonable opportunity. It was
further pleaded that the power of the Registrar in terms of
rule 25 cannot be delegated to any other person rather it
is within the competence of the Registrar to adjudge the
out-come of the allegations in terms of rule 25.
According to the learned counsels for the petitioners, the
Registrar has never applied his mind nor therewas any
notice to the petitioners from his behalf and further the
approval as granted to hold the disqualifications of the
petitioners would not be held to be the action of the
Registrar after application of his mind. In rebuttal the
argument is that the present revisions are not
maintainable since the same do not come within the
ambit of section 80 of the Act. Second ground put-forth
by the opposite side is that the business of issue of notice
was confined to the office of the Registrar and in case
any notice has been issued by his officer or official it
would not loose the sanctity of issue of the notice. The
senior counsel for the society in fairness submitted that in

case this court considers to give opportunity of being
heard, then specific date for appearance of the petitioners
would be notified avoiding delay. Indirectly, being a
Senior Counsel, he was also not satisfied with the mode
of service since he kept quiet when certain reports of the
bailiff were read over to me by the departmental
representative. The departmental representative could
not satisfy me as to how the names of the present
petitioners have been chosen for initiation of proceedings
under section 55 of the Act qua the rule 25 of the Rules.
The learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that
this court has jurisdiction in terms of section 80 to take
note of the inaction suo moto.
2. I have considered the points raised. It is settled law that
any allegation against any particular person or persons
has to be inquired into after notice to such person or
persons. Further the letter communicating the
disqualification does not disclose as to what kind of
disqualification a particular man has had. Before passing
the order by the Registrar, the persons concerned should
have been heard and there should have been proper

notice to them to represent their cases. The file of the
Registrar itself shows that he has simply approved the
action proposed by his subordinate meaning thereby that
he has failing to apply his mind. How could the
preliminary report of the Inquiry Officer be made the
basis for holding disqualifications without opportunity to
the affected persons rather this is injustice to them.
Further there had been no proper notice to the revisionists
by the Inquiry Officer. In case the service could not have
been affected other mode of service would have been
adopted as provided by the Act and the Rules therefore.
The Departmental representative could not satisfy me
that the proceedings as conducted have not been
defective. Besides the above cited revision, though the
arguments as advanced in the following other cases of
like nature have also been incorporated above, as such
the same shall also stand disposed off by this order. A
copy of this order be placed on each of the revision file.
Sr. No. Case Appellant Respondent No.

___________________________________________________
1. 50/88 Kulwant Rai Jain 1. Registrar, Coop.
Societies.
2. Matrinagar Coop. G.H.
Society Limited.
2. 51/88 Savitri Jain - do –
3. 52/88 Saroj Jain - do –

4. 53/88 Ram Parkash Shorewala - do –
5. 54/88 Krishna Devi - do –
6. 55/88 Shyam Lal - do –
7. 56/88 Rattan Lal Jhewar - do –
8. 57/88 Mehar Chand - do –
9. 58/88 Ram Kishore Kothari - do –
10. 59/88 Jai Chand Jain - do –
11. 60/88 Prem Parkash Bansal - do –
12. 61/88 Zile Singh - do –
13. 63/88 Savitri Devi Jain - do –
14. 64/88 Santosh Jain - do –
15. 65/88 Pawan Kumar Agarwal - do –
16. 73/88 N.C.Goel - do –
17. 74/88 Ram Partap Goel - do –
18. 91/88 Suresh Chand Goel - do –
19. 92/88 Shanta Ajmera - do –
20. 93/88 Narain Parshad - do –
21. 94/88 Vinod Kumar - do –
22. 95/88 R.D.Gupta - do –
23. 97/88 Nirmal Jain & Others - do –
Irrespective of the revision petitions being
maintainable or not, since I have found the action of the
Registrar being full of infirmities and there appears
commission of various irregularities. As such, it would
not be possible to allow such inaction to be prevailing
rather it would be reasonable on my part to eradicate

them by using suo moto powers. With this view of the
matter, it is hereby ordered as under:-
(i) that the petitioners should make appearance before
the Registrar for the purpose of defending their
cases on 27.12.1988 at 11 A.M.
(ii) that the Registrar shall decide upon the issue under
rule 25 of the Rules after proper hearing to the
concerned persons by the middle of January, 1988.
He should also examine the records of the society
and to take appropriate action in terms of the
provisions of the Act and the Rules.
(iii) that the registrar should also examine the position
and status of rest of the members and report in this
behalf be submitted to me separately.
(iv) status quo be maintained regarding the position
and status of the petitioners and other like persons
till the dispute is finally adjudicated upon by the
Registrar.
Since the elections of the society have not yet been
held, as such, the same should be completed immediately
after the out-come of the dispute with the Registrar.

A copy of this order be sent to the learned counsels
for the parties and copy of it be sent to the Registrar for
implementation.
Announced. Sd/-Romesh Bhandari

Dt.9.12.1988.
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF: W.P.(C) No.3871 of 1991
ORDER
16.12.1991
PRESENT: Mr. A.S.Chandhiok with Mr. Rajiv Mehra for the

petitioners.
C.W.3871/91
Notice to the respondents to show-cause why the petition
be not admitted, returnable on 30th January, 1992.
Shri S.K.Mahajan accepts notice on behalf Respondent
No.1 & 2. The Administrator accepts notice on behalf of
Respondent No.3. Shri Anand Jain Respondent No.5 is present
in court and he is served with the notice of the petition. A copy
of petition be given to him.
Notice be issued to the other respondents by ordinary
post as well as Dasti for the next date of hearing.
C.M.6458/91
Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a
document which was filed by the secretary – custodian of
records of the society with the Registrar Co-operative Societies
giving a list of records as on 30.6.88. The Secretary at that time
was Shri Shyam Lal Jain Respondent No.9. According to Mr.
Mahajan and the Administrator full record of society have not

been handed over to the Administrator. Despite repeated
attempts, it is only yesterday that some records were handed
over. According to the list of records which is prepared by the
Administrator no ledger after 30 th June 89 has been handed over
nor has any cash book after 30th June 89 has been given.
Comparing the list of records handed over with the list which
was filed by the then Secretary of the Society. We find that a
number of important records have not been given for example,
cash book for Ist July, 87 to 30 th June 88 has not been handed
over. Minutes book after 30th June 86 have not been given nor
is it evident that individual member files which were 99 in
number have been given.
Directions is issued to Respondent No.5 & 9 to deliver all
the records of the society atleast as per list already filed by
Respondent No.9 with the Registrar of Co-op. Society, copy of
which list has been handed over to Mr. V.P.Singh and to
Respondent No.5, within one week from today. These
respondents should also hand over to the Administrator other
documents including all the cash books and the Minute Books
after 30th June, 86 within this period of one week. If no action
is taken or if the full records, books, documents etc. are not
handed over as directed by us then the Respondent No.1 & 2

shall take action against the defaulters under the relevant
provisions of Delhi Co-op. Societies Act including Section 82
thereof.
Pending disposal of the writ petition we direct that
Respondents 10 to 15 shall in no way transfer, alienate or part
with the possession of the flats which have been allotted to
them and nor will they encumber the said flats in any way.
The Administrator will in the meanwhile verify and
determine the list of members who were legitimately entitled to
be enrolled as such. The Administrator will also give a report
as to who are in actual physical possession of 99 flats.
On a question put by us Shri Anand Jain who is present
in court says that there was a minute book which was in
existance after June 86 and that minute book was with him.
Q. Where has that minute book gone because you were the
president of the society till May 1990 ?
Ans. Despite the fact that the question has been repeated a
number of times, Shri Jain refuses to give an answer.
The aforesaid inability of Shri Jain to give the answer
will be taken into consideration by Respondents No.1
& 2. If and when they take action under the said Act.
Copy of this order be given dasti to Counsel for the
parties.
Sd/-
Mr.B.N.KIRPAL.J.
Sd/-
Mr.ARUN KUMAR.J.
ORDER
28.05.1992
Present: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok with Rajiv Mehra for the applicant.
C.M.4034/92 in W.P.(C) No.3871 of 1991
Notice for 9th July, 92. After hearing Ld. Counsel for the
applicant we are of the opinion that ex-parte order should be
made. Mr. Arvind Nigam Advocate who is present in Court is
appointed as Local Commissioner to visit Maitri Nagar Co-op.
Group Housing Society Ltd. at Plot No.29 Sector-9, Rohini,
Delhi-85 to make a report as to who are in actual physical
possession of 99 flats of the society. We will also restrain
respondent No.5 from in any manner interfering in the work of
the society or in any manner dealing with, alienating
transferring, allotting or parting with possession of any flat
forming part of the societies complex. Respondent No.5 is also
restrained from creating any impediment of any nature of
whatsoever in the ingress and egress of any member of the
society, family members, friends, visitors and employees, Local
Commissioner shall also make a report if there has been any
such impediment. Local Commissioner will also place his own
locks on the flats, which he finds unoccupied. A direction is

issued to S.H.O. Sameypur Badli Police Station to provide to all
possible assistance as required by the Local Commissioner in
discharging his duties. No obstruction will be caused to the
Local Commissioner in discharge of his duties by any one
Local Commissioner will also take photographs of the complex
as he may deem fit and necessary. The fee of the Local
Commissioner tentatively is fixed at Rs.5,000/- excluding out
of pocket expenses which shall be subject to further orders of
the Court. Fee shall be paid by the petitioners at the first
instance. Dasti as well. A copy of this order will be given
Dasti.
Sd/-
Mr.D.P.WADHWA. J.
Sd/-
Mr.R.L.GUPTA. J.
ANNEXURE TO AUDIT REPORT OF THE MAITRI
NAGAR CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY
LIMITED.
PART A INFORMATORY
NAME OF SOCIETY : The Maitri Nagar Co-op. Group

Housing Society Ltd.
REGISTERED OFFICE : Sector-9, Plot No.29, Rohini, Delhi.
REGISTRATION NO. & : 392(GH) dt.19.12.1979.

DATE
PRESENT AUDIT PERIOD : 1.7.1988 to 31.3.1989
PREVIOUS AUDIT REPORT: 1.7.1987 to 30.6.1988
At the time of
PREVIOUS AUDIT PRESENT AUDIT
NAME OF AUDITORS : Tibrewala Bajaj & Tibrewala Bajaj &

Associates Associates
Total No. of Members : 98 99

(Including 27 disputed) (Including 27 disputed)
No. of New Members

Enrolled. 5 1
No. of Members left/

resigned. 6 --
No. of Members expelled -- --
No. of Members disqualified. 27 --

(under dispute)
Audit Classification D C
Sanctioned NCL Rs.94.86 Lacs Rs.94.86 Lacs
Cash in hand limit Rs.3,000/- Rs.3,000/-
Area of Operation Union Territory of Delhi
Compliance of Previous
Audit Report. The Society has still not submitted Compliance of
Previous Audit Report to the Registrar of Co-
operative Societies.
RELEVANT EXTRACT OF REPORT FOR THE YEAR 1987-88
“PART B”
2.MEMBERSHIP
2.1 The position of membership of the Society is as
hereunder:
Total number of members in the beginning of year 71

(excluding 27 disputed)
Less : Resigned during the year NIL

Add : enrolled during the year 1
___________
Number of the members at the end of the year (excluding 72
27 members whose membership has been disputed) -------------------
2.2 Details of member enrolled during the year under audit have
been given in the Annexure attached with the Report. List of
72 members as on 31.3.1989 is also attached herewith.
2.3 As mentioned in our previous Report, the Society
was informed by the Office of Registrar of Co-
operative Societies, Delhi Administration, New Delhi
vide its letter No.F-47/392/GH/Co-op/1078
dt.24.2.88 that 27 members of the Society were
incurring disqualification in term of Rule 25 of Delhi
Co-op. Societies Rules, 1973 and hence requested
to do the needful in the matter. In meeting of the
Managing Committee of the Society held on

2.3.1988, membership of these 27 members were
held to be ceased on the basis of above referred
letter. However, these members filed Revision
petition Under Section 80 of the Delhi Co-op.
Societies Act 1972 in the Court of the Lt.. Governor
Delhi on 21.4.1988. During the year under audit,
the Hon’ble Lt. Governor, Delhi in its order passed
on 9.12.1988 has directed that the Registrar shall
decide upon the issue under Rule 25 of the Rules
after proper hearing to the concerned persons and
status quo be maintained regarding the position and
status of the petitioners till the dispute is finally
adjudicated upon by the Registrar.
For Tibrewala Bajaj & Associates

Chartered Accountants
Place: Delhi
Sd/-
Dated: (Parmod Kumar Tibrewala)
PARTNER
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR: COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
OLD COURTS BUILDING : PARLIAMENT STREET : NEW
DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF:
Inquiry regarding ceasation of membership of 27

members of Matri Nagar Coop. G/H Society Ltd.
ORDER
As per orders of Lt. Governor Delhi passed in the case of
Maitri Nagar Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. inquiry
with regard to 27 members was conducted by examining the
records produced by the Society. Given below is the brief of
findings of the inquiry in each case:-
1. Shri Kulwant Rai Jain (Membership No.10-A)
Shri Kulwant Rai Jain’s membership was ceased from
the society as he was not residing in Delhi but was residing in
Bansi. The society has relied on the membership register which
has not been signed by the member and all letters sent to him
had been received back. The member produced registered
letters of the society which were received by him at the address
given in the membership register upto 23.11.1987. The
member had also taken requisite action as per the letters of the
Society. The Society could not produce any conclusive
evidence to prove that he did not reside in Delhi. It was,

therefore, not proper to cease his membership from the Society
in the absence of any concrete proof.
His membership was ceased from the society on the
ground that the address given by him as his residential address
was found to be a shop of Iron Merchant and he was not
residing there. The only reason put forth by the Society in
support of its contention was that all the letters sent to the
members have been received back. However, in support of his
claim the member produced documents which covered period
from 1972 to 1978 with the address of the petitioner on all the
documents as 1193, Kucha Pati Ram which has been alleged by
the society to be not the residential address of the member. The
society could produce any conclusive evidence against the
petitioner while the petitioner produced enough evidence to
substantiate his claim that he resides at the same address. There
was no ground, therefore, to cease his membership from the
Society.
Her membership was ceased from the Society because
she was not found residing at D-9, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. The
society produced affidavit duly attested by the Oath
Commissioner but not signed by the deponent and registered
letters No.1580 dated 22.1.1987, No.2563 dated 21.1.1987, and
No.751 dated 1.1.1987 which were sent to her but were
received back. In one of the registered letters address
mentioned by the Society was A-9, Ashok Vihar instead of D-9,
Ashok Vihar. The President of the Society stated that Ms.
Kusum Jain was being financed by Shri N.C.Goel, ex-President
of the Society and this is a benami membership of Shri
N.C.Goel. Ms. Kusum Jain failed to produce any documentary
proof in support of her claim. Inspite of opportunities having
been given to her the member could not substantiate her claim
and, therefore, it is concluded that the society was right in
ceasing her membership.
His membership was ceased as he was found
not residing at the address given in the membership
register. The society produced unsigned affidavits
but duly attested by an Oath Commissioner and six
letters that were sent at the address given in the
Register from the period 12.7.85 to 17.7.1985. The

President of the Society also stated that Shri Gupta
was financed by Shri N.C.Goel and that it was a
‘benami’ membership of Shri N.C.Goel. The petitioner
in his defence produced a letter of Deputy Chief
Manager (Personnel), Oriental Bank of Commerce
dated 30.4.1988 that Shri R.D.Gupta works as a
Special Assistant and is a residential of House No.2,
Model Town, Bahadurgarh. The Petitioner failed to
avail the opportunity awarded by the Hon’ble L.G. to
prove his bonafide claim. He was enrolled as a
member in 1979 and there is no conclusive evidence
that he was residing in Delhi in 1979 or even up-to-
date. Hence this membership was rightly ceased by
the Society.
The case of the society is that all letters sent to
Shri R.P.Shorewal at 3228, Chowmukhi Mandir were
received back. The Society also produced two
unsigned affidavits. From the documents produced
by the member it could not be conclusively
established that he was a resident of Delhi at the time

when he was enrolled as member. Therefore, the
society was right in ceasing his membership.
The case of the society is that she was not a
resident of Delhi at the relevant time when she was
enrolled as a member in the society. She is in fact a
resident of 15/20, Chitla Road, Calcutta. The member
could not produce any conclusive evidence of residence
in Delhi either at present or at the time she was enrolled
as a member in 1981. The Society was right in ceasing
her membership.
His membership was ceased from the Society as he was
not resident in Delhi at the relevant time. The President of the
Society stated that he is a resident of Rohtak and that it is the
‘Benami’ membership of Shri N.C.Goel. The documents
produced by the member could not conclusively establish that
he was resident of Delhi at the relevant time. Therefore, the
Society rightly ceased his membership.

His membership was ceased from the Society as he is
residing in Delhi and given a fictitious address from which
letters sent by the Society have been received back. The
member could not conclusively establish that he is a resident of
Delhi either at the relevant time or even now. The society was
right in ceasing his membership.
His membership was ceased from the society as he was
not resident of Delhi at the time of enrollment. He is in fact
resident of Faridabad and all letters sent to him at the address 8,
Ishwar Colony, Bumper Road, Delhi, were received back. Shri
Kothari, However, produced documents which clearly establish
that he has been residing in Delhi from the time he became
member in the Society. Therefore, the society was not right in
The membership of Shri P.P.Bansal was ceased from the
Society as he was not resident of Delhi. The Society’s
contention is that Shri Bansal is residing in Pune and is a
domicile of Haryana. Shri Bansal was enrolled as a member on

14.7.1987 from the address 504, Meera Bagh, Delhi. From the
documents supplied by Shri Bansal it is conclusively
established that he was resident of Delhi at the relevant time
and, therefore, the society was not right in ceasing his
membership.
His membership was ceased on the ground that he was
not residing in Delhi and all letters sent to him at the address
given by him were received back by the Society. Further the
society stated that it was a ‘Benami’ membership of Shri
N.C.Goel. From the records produced by Shri N.K.Jain it could
not be conclusively established that he was resident of Delhi at
the relevant time. Therefore, the society was right tin ceasing
his membership.
The Society ceased his membership as he was not
resident of Delhi. In fact, he was resident of 23-A Subhash
Road, Calcutta. Registered letters sent at the Local address in
Delhi were received back by the Society. The evidence
produced by Shri Pawan Kumar Aggarwal in support of his
claim has conclusively established that he was a resident of

Delhi at the relevant time. Therefore, the society was not right
The membership of Shri Rattan Lal Jhawar was ceased as
he was not residing in Shakti Nagar at the address given at the
time of enrollment. Actually, he is residing in Faridabad.
Although he has produced rent receipt since 1963, the landlord
says that he is not residing there and he has taken false receipt.
He is actually residing in House No.38, Sector-VII Faridabad.
The documents produced by Shri Jain in support of his claim
conclusively prove that he was a resident of Delhi at the
relevant time and, therefore, the society was not right in ceasing
his membership.
Her membership was ceased by the Society as she was
not residing in Delhi. The address given is of Punjab National
Bank which is not a residential address. Ms. Jain could not
produce any document to conclusively prove that she was
residing in Delhi at the relevant time. Therefore, the society
was right in ceasing her membership.

The membership of Shri Suresh Chand Goel was ceased
as he was not residing in Delhi and he was a resident of
Calcutta. Further the society alleged that it was actually a case
of ‘benami’ membership of Shri N.C.Goel. The members could
not produce any evidence in support of his claim and, therefore,
the society was right in ceasing his membership.
The membership of Ms. Krishan Devi was ceased as all
the letters sent to her were received back and that she is a
resident of Hissar and not of Delhi. The society further alleged
that it is a ‘benami’ membership of Shri N.C.Goel. The
member could not produce any document to conclusively prove
that she was resident of Delhi. The society was right in ceasing
her membership.
Her membership was ceased as she was not residing in
Delhi at the relevant time when she became member of the
Society and that it is a ‘benami’ membership of Shri N.C.Goel.
The members could not produce any document to prove that
she was the resident of Delhi at the relevant time and, therefore,
the society was right in ceasing her membership.

His membership was ceased as he was not residing in
Delhi in fact he is residing in Calcutta. All the letters sent to
him were received back. The member produced documents
which conclusively establish that he was a resident of Delhi at
the relevant time. The Society was, therefore, not right in
His membership was also ceased as he was not a resident
of Delhi. From the documents produced by him it could not be
conclusively established that he was a resident of Delhi at the
relevant time. Therefore, the society was right in ceasing his
membership.
20. Shri Shyam Lal Jain (Membership NO.43)
His membership was ceased on the ground that he owns a
house in Shalimar Bagh and is, therefore, disqualified under
rule 25 to become a member of the Society. From the
documents produced by Shri Jain it has been established that he
did not suffer from any of the disqualifications as pointed out
by the society as the property stated to be in his name is not in

the name of Shri S.L.Jain. The Society was, therefore, not right
The membership of Shri N.C.Goel was ceased from the
society as there was no response on the notice served on him.
Further it was alleged by the Society that Shri N.C.Goel is
holder of the property No.AG-20, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. A
copy of the lease deed was also filed. From the documents
produced by the Society and the member, it has been clearly
established that Shri N.C.Goel suffered from disqualification
under rule 25 and, therefore, the society was right in ceasing his
membership.
The membership of Shri Richhpal Jain was ceased on the
ground that he own property No.504, Meera Bagh, Delhi. From
the documents produced before me it has been clearly
eatablished that property No.504, Meera Bagh is not in the
name of Shri Richhpal Jain and therefore, the society was not

Her membership was ceased as she was found to be
resident of Calcutta. The society also pointed out that it is a
‘benami’ membership of Shri N.C.Goel. The member could
not produce any document which could conclusively
established that she was a resident of Delhi at the relevant time,
therefore, the society was right in ceasing her membership.
She is a resident of Rewari and according to the Society
it is a ‘benami’ membership for Shri N.C.Goel. She was
enrolled on 4.4.1981. The member could not produce any
document which could establish her claim of a bonafide
member of the society. The Society was right in ceasing her
membership.
As per the versions of the Society she is a resident of
Calcutta with the address 54-A, Block-B, Bango Avenue, VIP
Road, Calcutta. She produced documents which clearly
establish that she was a resident of Delhi at the relevant time,
therefore, the society was not right in ceasing her membership.

His membership was ceased from the society because he
was not residing in Delhi at the relevant time. The member
could not produce any document which could conclusively
prove that he was a resident of Delhi at the relevant time.
Therefore, the society was right in ceasing his membership.
Her membership was ceased as she was reportedly not
residing in Delhi and in fact she was resident of Calcutta. The
member could not produce any document in support of her
claim; therefore, the society was right in ceasing her
membership.
Orders accordingly.
Sd/-
(K.S.MEHRA)
No.RCS/CGH/89/8509 Dated 27.9.1989.

1. President/Secretary, Maitri Nagar, Cooperative G/H
Society Ltd., Plot No.29, Sector No.9, Rohini, Delhi.
Sd/-
(K.S.MEHRA)
LIST OF DATE OF EVENTS
1979 The Society was formed and registered with
a total membership of 99 persons.
1982-83 A piece of land was allotted vide Plot No.29
in Sector IX Rohini for construction of 99
Flats.
13.4.1986 After submitting the building plan the
foundation stone was laid.
21.12.1986 Election took place and Mr. Anand Jain was
elected as President.
20.12.1987 A G.B.M. was held and realizing the
function of Mr. Anand Jain it was resolved
to hold fresh election on 7th January 1988.
Thereafter, all the records pertaining to the
Society were removed by Mr. Anand Jain.
21.12.1987 An illegal meeting was held by Mr. Anand
Jain and in the said meeting Shri R.P.Jain
who was secretary at that time was
suspended.
7.1.1988 The Registrar on the representations of 20
members passed the orders :

(i) The department would conduct
elections that were fallen due.
(ii) Bank Account temporarily stopped.
12.1.1988 The Registrar Co-op societies appointed
Shri P.K.Panchal to conduct the election.
14.1.1988 Despite orders the bank account was not
stopped. The Registrar revoke the earlier
orders dt.7.1.88 and 12.1.88 and appointed
Shri P.C.Kathuria as Election Officer and he
was also appointed to conduct the inquiry
U/Sec. 55 of the Act for accessing the
working, constitution and management and
complaints received in the office.
Though Mr. P.C.Kathuria was appointed to
assess the working, constitution and
management and the complaints received in
the office as per orders. He instead of
conducting the inquiry under section 55 of
the Act as per orders, with malafide
intention joined the hands with Mr. Anand

Jain and prepared a report that 27 members
incurred dis-qualifications in the terms of
Rule 25 of the Act.
24.2.1988 The Registrar on the said report, without
affording any opportunity to the person
concerned passed the orders ceasation of
membership of 27 members U/Sec. 25 of the
Act.
1.6.1988 As the said 27 persons came to know about
the orders passed by the Registrar on
24.2.1988, they filed an appeal U/Sec. 80 of
the Act before the Lt. Governor. The Lt.
Governor was pleased to stay the orders
dt.24.2.1988 passed by the Registrar. It was
further ordered that no new member be
enrolled.
10.8.1988 The draw of lots with regard to remaining 72
members was to be conducted but due to
some reasons it was conducted for 69
members only.
9.12.1988 The Lt. Governor was pleased to set-aside
the order dt.24.2.88 and remanded the
matter back to the Registrar for conducting
fresh inquiry.
18.1.1989 The Lt. Governor was pleased to dismiss the
review application filed on behalf of the
Society for reviewing the order dt.9.12.88.
The Lt. Governor was further pleased to
direct to maintain status quo.
29.3.1989 The Lt. Governor was pleased to passed the
orders on the application filed by Mahesh
Chand for impleadment as ‘dismissed as
withdrawn’.
19.4.1989 The Ld. Sub Judge stayed the operation of
the order of the Lt. Governor dt.9.12.1988
on the suit filed by Mahesh Chand (relative
of Anand Jain) on the ground that ordered
passed by the Lt. Governor with regard to 72
members to maintain status quo was illegal.

28.6.1989 The audit report for the year 1987-88
dt.28.6.1989 shows the strength of members
as 71.
23.7.1989 An agenda notice was issued by the election
officer for G.B.M. on 19.8.89.
In the meanwhile the managing committee
obtained stay from the Lt. Governor by
filing a review petition.
27.9.1989 The Registrar passed the orders after the
conducting the inquiry with regard to 27
members as were expelled vide order
dt.24.2.1988. As per the said order the
membership of 10 members out of 27 was
restored and the remaining 17 members
were declared as disqualified.
:The review petition filed by the
Society against the order dt.27.9.89 passed
by the Lt. Governor is disposed of with the
observation of holding fresh elections
immediately.
27.10.1989 :The notice for election for holding the
elections on 18.11.1989 was issued.
3.11.1989 :The Ld. Sub Judge pleased to grant stay of
election notice dt.27.10.89 on the suit filed
by Shri Nipun Kumar on his allegation that
he was enrolled as member (out of 27
illegally enrolled) has not receipt any notice
about the election.
:The list of 27 members as illegally
enrolled by Shri Anand Jain was submitted
to the election officer Shri H.P.Sharma.
20.12.89 Shri R.P.Jain made complaints regarding his
illegal suspension/removal from the post of
Secretary
30.5.1990 The Managing Committee of the society was
removed and its placed Shri K.J.R.Burman
was appointed as Administrator for a period
of 6 months.
11.6.1990 The Ld. Vacation Judge was pleased to stay
the order of the Registrar dt.30.5.1990 in

suit filed by Shri Anil Jain (real brother of
Mr. Anand Jain).
8.1.1991 The suit filed by Shri Anil Jain was listed
before Sub Judge and it was dismiss as
withdrawn on the ground that the
Administrator so appointed vide order
dt.30.5.1990 was only for a period of six
months and the said terms has expired on
30.1.1990 and the suit has become
infructous.
14.1.1991 The Ld. Sub Judge Shri T.D.Kashav, was
pleased to dismissed the suit by Shri Nipun
Kumar for holding the elections without
inclusion of his name in the electoral rolls.
On the ground that it is not maintainable.
appeal filed by the Society against the
restoration of membership of 10 persons as
restored by the Registrar.
13.8.1991 The Registrar extended the term of
Administrator w.e.f.1.12.90 to 30.11.91 and

in place of Shri KJR Burman, Shri
A.D.Ahuja ,Assistant Registrar was duputed
to manage the affairs of the society.
10.12.1991 The present Writ No.3871/1991 was filed
before this Hon’ble Court.
16.12.1991 This Hon’ble Court was pleased to issue
notice on the writ petition and was further
pleased to direct the respondent No.5 & 9 to
hand over the entire records of the society to
the Administrator.
This Hon’ble Court was further pleased to
direction the respondents No.10 to 15 not to
transfer alienate of part with possession.
This Hon.ble Court (the same bench)
was pleased to dissmiss the CWP 2659/91
filed by Smt. Manju Jain. In the said writ
petition the order of Registrar dt. 30.5.90
whereby the managing committee was
superseded and the order 13.8.1991whereby
the term of Administrator was extended and
in place of Shir KJR Burman,Shri

A.D.Ahuja was appointed to manage the
affairs of the society, were challanged.
28.5.1992 This Hon’ble Court was pleased to appoint
the Local Commissioner to prepare a report
as to who are in actual physical possession
of 99 Flats and the respondent No.5 was
restrained from interfering in the work of the
society and in any manner dealing with
alienating, transferring, allotting or parting
with possession of any flat forming part of
Society Complex.
13.6.1992 The Local Commissioner inspected the site,
prepared a report and took the photographs.
26.6.1992 The Local Commissioner submits its report
before this Hon’ble Court.
9.11.1993 The Administrator in pursuance the
directions of this Hon’ble Court prepared a
list of bonafide members of the Society
showing the names of 82 persons.
6.3.1995 Shri Jai Parkash Aggarwal filed a suit for
permanent injunction against the petitioner

No.12/petitioner in the C.C.P. and other
defendants alleging that he was a allottee of
Flat No.602 and in occupation and
possession of the said flat. The plaintiff the
forged documents which he obtained in
collusion with Shri Anand Jain obtained the
possession slip, share certificate and copy of
demand letter ante-dated showing the date
22.11.1990. He further alleged that on
5.3.1995 when the said plaintiff had visited,
the said flat with a view to shift his
residence in the said flat he was prevented
by the defendants.
The Ld. Sub Judge was pleased to issue
show-cause notice for 9.3.1995 and was also
pleased to pass the ex-party orders
‘meanwhile the defendants are here by
restrained from the interfering in the
peaceful possession of the plaintiff in Flat
No.602, 6th Floor in Plot No.29, Sector 9,

Rohini, Delhi Matri Nagar Co-operative
Group Housing Society.
8.3.1995 The said Jai Parkash Aggarwal under the
cover of the said order put a door on the
entrance of the flat and locked it.
19.7.1995 The Ld. Sub Judge disposed of the
application filed by the plaintiff – Jai
Parkash Aggarwal Under Order 39 Rule 1 &
2 to maintain the status quo as on that date
on the pretext that the plaintiff is in
possession of the flat as on that date.
16.10.1995 The present C.C.P. has been filed before this
Hon’ble Court.
----------------
LIST OF ORIGINAL MEMBERS
1. Shri Om Parkash Aggarwal S/O Late Shri Hukam Chand
Aggarwal.
2. Shri Ram Chander Gupta S/O Shri Satya Narayan Gupta.
3. Shri Anand jain S/O Shri Kesho Ram Jain.
4. Shri Anil Kumar Jain S/O Shri Kesho Ram.
5. Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal S/O Shri Brij Nath Goyal.
6. Smt. Dropti Devi W/O Shri Asha Ram Tyagi.
7. Shri Phool Singh S/O Shri Bhikam Singh.
8. Shri Anand Mohan Swami S/O Shri K.R.Swami.
9. Smt. Shashi Devi W/O Shri Ashutosh Jain.
10.Shri Gunwant Rai Jain S/O Shri J.R.Jain.
11.Shri V.K.Jain S/O Shri Shyam Lal Jain.
12.Shri Kaushal Aggarwal S/O Shri Ram Pratap Aggarwal.
13.Shri Anil Kumar Aggarwal S/O Shri Ram Kumar.
14.Shri Ajay Bansal S/O Shri Kirori Mal.
15.Shri Gurender Singh S/O Shri Laxman Dass.
16.Shri Manohar Lal S/O Shri Bahadur Chand.
17.Shri Madan Lal Aggarwal S/O Shri Mange Ram.
18.Shri Mahadev Parshad Goyal S/O Shri Radhey Kishan
Goyal.
19.Shri Satyam Lal Jain S/O Late Shri S.C.Jain.
20.Shri Vinod Kumar Jain S/O Shri Pawan Kumar Jain.
21.Shri Naval Kishore Goyal S/O Shri Naresh Chand Goyal.
22.Shri Harsh Chandra S/O Shri Kanak Mal Jain.
23.Shri Dharmi Chand Maheshwari S/O Shri Harsh Chand.
24.Smt. Manju Jain S/O Dr. Om Parkash jain.
25.Shri Shyam Lal Jain S/O Shri Ramesh Chand jain.
26.Shri Ashok Kumar Jain S/O Shri Kesho Ram Jain.
27.Shri Sagar Chand S/O Shri Raja Ram.
28.Shri Ved Parkash Mittal S/O Shri Ram Rattan Mittal.
29.Shri M.B.Singh Jain S/O Shri Sita Ram Jain.
30.Shri Munshi Ram Sharma S/O Shri Ram Chand Sharma.
31.Shri Ashok Kumar Jain S/O Lahri Mal Jain.
32.Smt. Sudershan Mali W/O Shri M.S.Mali.
33.Shri R.L.Garg S/O Shri H.S.Garg.
34.Shri Subhash Chand Jain S/O Shri Khem Chand Jain.
35.Shri Mahabir Parshad S/O Shri Tara Chand.
36.Smt. Tara Devi W/O Shri R.K.Vohra.
37.Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma S/O Shri Than Chand Sharma.
38.Smt. Chandrawati Tewari W/O Shri Sughriv Tewari.
39.Smt. Sudershan Kumari W/O Shri Ranvir Singh.

40.Smt. Suma Puri W/O Shri Virender Puri.
41.Shri Jiwan Parkash Kataria S/O Shri Mohan Lal Kataria.
42.Shri Bal Kishan Thagi S/O Shri Anil Tyagi.
43.Shri Naresh Chand jain S/O Shri Munia Mal Jain.
44.Shri Anil Kumar Singhal S/O Shri Jagdish Singhal.
45.Smt. Prem Lata Garg W/O Shri Laxman Das Garg.
46.Shri Tek Chand Jain S/O Shri Chander Bhan Jain.
47.Shri Rai Chand Jain S/O Late Shri Lal Chand Jain.
48.Smt. Sharda Pareekh S/O Shri Ram Gopal Pareekh.
49.Shri Rakesh Kumar Marwaha S/O Shri O.P.Marwah.
50.Shri Niranjan Pal Singh S/O Shri Mohar Singh.
51.Smt. Usha Rani Gupta W/O Shri Madan Lal Gupta.
52.Shri Vinod Aggarwal S/O Shri S.L.Aggarwal.
53.Shri S.P.Mehra S/O Shri Harbans Lal Mehra.
54.Shri Ajit Kumar S/O Shri Lachaman Dass.
55.Shri Jagdish Chand Bansal S/O Shri Behari Lal Bansal.
56.Shri Atul K. Khandelwal S/O Shri R.M.Khandelwal.
57.Shri Navin Kumar Jain S/O Late Shri Ajit Parshad Jain.
58.Shri Mahesh Chand jain S/O Late Shri Radhey Lal.
59.Shri Jainender Kumar Jain S/O Shri M.C.Jain.
60.Shri Jaswant Singh Gupta S/O Shri Prabhu Dyal.

61.Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta S/O Shri Ram Nath Gupta.
62.Shri Virender Kumar Jain S/O Shri K.C.Jain.
63.Shri Kanwar Sain Aggarwal S/O Shri Desh Raj Aggarwal.
64.Shri Mahesh Chand s/O Shri Sagar Chand.
65.Shri Rakesh Aggarwal S/O Shri Mahabir Parshad Aggarwal.
66.Shri Pawan Kumar Jain S/O Shri C.B.Jain.
67.Shri Dinesh Kumar Malhotra S/O Shri Kali Chand Malhotra.
68.Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta S/O Shri Om Parkash Gupta.
69.Smt. Sneh Lata W/O Shri Ram Chander Sharma.
70.Shri Parduman Kumar Jain S/O Shri Sohan Lal Jain.
71.Shri Balwant Singh Jain S/O Shri Man Singh Jain.
72.Shri Anil Kumar S/O Shri Rajendra Prasad.
73.Shri Kulwant Rai Jain.
74.Shri Rich Pal Jain.
75.Shri Ram Pratap Goyal.
76.Shri Shyam Lal Jain.
77.Smt. Shanta Ajmera.
78.Shri N.P.Mantri.
79.Shri Rattan Lal Jhawar.
80.Shri Pawan Kumar Aggarwal.
81.Shri P.P.Bansal.
82.Shri R.K.Kothari.
83.Smt. Kusum Jain
84.Shri R.D.Gupta
85.Shri R.P.Shorewal
86.Smt. Savitri Devi
87.Shri Jai Chand Jain
88.Shri Mehar Chand Jain.
89.Shri Nirmal Kumar Jain.
90.Smt. Savitri Jain.
91.Shri Suresh Chand Goyal.
92.Smt. Krishan Devi.
93.Shri S.D.Aggarwal.
94.Shri Jile Singh Sharma.
95.Ms. Raj Kumari.
96.Ms. Saroj Jain.
97.Shri Vinod Kumar.
98.Smt. Santosh Jain.
99.Shri N.C.Goyal.
NOTE:
(A) The above mentioned 99 persons were the original
members out of which the membership of 27 members
i.e. shown at serial number 73 to 99 were illegally ceased

by the Assistant Registrar, Mrs. S.Khurana vide order
dt.24.2.1988.
(B) The said 27 members filed an appeal before The Lt.
Governor against the said order passed by The Assistant
Registrar dt.24.2.1988. The Lt. Governor was pleased to
set-aside the impugned order and was further pleased to
remand back the matter to the Registrar for re-
examination of the matter.
(C) The Society preferred a review before the Lt. Governor
against the order dt.9.12.1988. The Lt. Governor was
pleased to dismissed the said review vide order
dt.18.1.1989.
(D) The Registrar re-examined the matter pertaining to
ceasation of membership of 27 members as shown at
serial number 73 to 99 and was pleased to order that the
membership of persons at serial number 73 to 82 was
wrongly ceased and restored their membership and
passed the order accordingly. However, the Registrar
declared the 17 members as shown at serial number 83 to
99 were not entitled to continue to be a member of the

Society as they incurred disqualification Under Section
25 of the Co-operative Society Act.
(E) The Society filed an appeal against the restoration of the
membership of 10 persons as shown at serial number 73
to 82, before the Lt. Governor. The Lt. Governor was
pleased to dismissed the said appeal vide order
dt.25.6.1991.
(F) The said 17 members filed the appeal against the said
order before the Lt. Governor, who was pleased to
remand back, the case of 16 members out of those 17
members, once again to the Registrar for fresh inquiry.
Subsequently their membership was restored and the
orders of ceasation of membership by the Registrar vide
order dt.15.6.1994. The Society filed an appeal against
the said order before the Lt. Governor. The Lt. Governor
was pleased to dismiss the said appeal against the
restoration. It is pertinent to mention here that none out
of those 17 persons is the petitioner herein.
(G) The persons shown at serial number 23, 39 & 63 who are
the petitioners No.1, 12 & 15 before this Hon’ble Court
are the original members, their membership was never

subjected to any ceasation and their names were put in
the draw of lots held on 10.8.1988. The number of flats
allotted to them in the said draw of lots is as under:
i) Shri Dharmi Chand Maheshwari – Petitioner No.1
Allotted Flat No.601.
ii) Smt. Sudershan Kumari – Petitioner No.12
iii) Shri Kanwar Sain Aggarwal – Petitioner No.15
(H) The petitioners No.2,3,4,6 & 10 are the persons whose
membership was ceased by the order dt.24.2.1988 but
later on restored vide order dt.27.9.1989 by the
Registrar. Hence, their names could not be put in the
draw of lots held on 10.8.1988 for 69 flats.

DELHI.
(EXTRA ORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN RE:

….PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Registrar Co-operative Societies,

Delhi & Others
….RESPONDENTS
1. Shri D.C.Maheshwari,
D-25, C.C.Colony,
Delhi-110 007.

Bazar Sita Ram,
Delhi-110006.
3. Shri R.K.Kothari,
403, Laxmi Bhawan,
72, Nehru Place,
New Delhi.

Sector VIII, Rohini,
Delhi-1100085.

Plot No.29, Sector-IX,
Rohini, Delhi-1100085.

Outer Ring Road,
New Delhi-110041.



New Delhi-110055.



Delhi-110085.
14. Shri V.K.jain,

Delhi-110085.
Delhi-110031.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.
….PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Registrar,
New Delhi-110001.

Delhi-110054.

Flat No.29, Sector-IX, Rohini, Delhi,

5. Shri Anand Jain,

Delhi-110085.
Delhi-110052.
8. Smt. Manju Jain,

44, Maitri apartments,
Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.
11. Shri K.C.Aggarwal,

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.
Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.
17. Shri G.K.Garg,

through his tenant Shri S.K.Arora,
Delhi-110085.
18. Shri G.K.Sharma,

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Shri Rajesh Gulati,
Delhi-110085.
21. Shri T.K.Gupta,

Delhi-110085.
Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.
26.(a) Smt. Rekha Aggarwal,

26.(b) Master Ashish Aggarwal,

26.(c) Baby Arunima Aggarwal,

ALL RESIDENT OF:

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.
28. Shri B.S.Sarna,
Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.
30. Shri H.R.Lal,

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.
34. Shri K.R.Punia,

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.
Smt. Bimla Devi,
Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Shri Rajesh Banga,
Delhi-110085.
….RESPONDENTS
___________________________________________________
CHANDHIOK & ASSOCIATES

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS
NEW DELHI
DATED:
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE
SOCIETIES,
SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.
Ref.No.F.47/392/GH/COOP/1078 Dated : 24.2.88
President/Secrtetary,
Maintri Nagar Cooperative G/H Society Ltd.,
Plot No.29, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi-34.
Sug: Ceasation of membership in Maitri Nagar

Cooperative G/H Society Ltd.
With reference to the above noted subject I am
directed inform you that following 27 members are
incurring disqualification in term of Rule 25 of Delhi
Cooperative Societies rules 1973 and regd. Bye-Laws of the
society.
1. Smt. Kusum Jain M.No. 94B

2. Shri Ram Partap Goel M.No. 63A
3. Smt. Santosh Jain M.No. 35B
4. Shri Ram Parkash Shorewala M.No. 8B
5. Shri Prem Parkash Bansal M.No. 04A
6. Shri Vinod Kumar M.No. 14A
7. Shri Rattan lal Jhawar M.No. 33B
8. Shri Rameshwar Dass Gupta M.No. 62A
9. Shri Suresh Chand Goyal M.No. 17A
10. Smt. Savitri Jain M.No. 6B
11. Smt. Savitri Devi Jain M.No. 9B
12. Shri Kulwant Rai Jain M.No. 10A
13. Smt. Nirmal Kumari Jain M.No. 96B
14. Smt. Krishna Devi M.No. 1A
15. Mrs. Raj Kumari M.No. 97B
16. Smt. Saroj Jain M.No. 98B
17. Shri S.D.Aggarwal M.No. 99B
18. Shri Mehar Chand Jain M.No. 73A
19. Shri Pawan Kumar Aggarwal M.No. 48A
20. Smt. Shanta Ajmera M.No. 69A
21. Shri N.P.Mantri M.No. 70A
22. Shri Jile Singh Sharma M.No. 12C
23. Shri Ram Kishore Khetari M.No. 88A
24. Shri Jai Chand Jain M.No. 60B
25. Shri Rich Pal Jain M.No. 95A
26. Shri Naresh Chand Goel M.No. 30A
27. Shri Shyam Lal Jain
S/O Shri Mehtab Chand Jain M.No. 43A
You are requested to do the needful accordingly.
Your’s faithfully,
Sd/-
(Mrs. S.Khurana)
Asst. Registrar
LIST OF MEMBERS OF MAITRI NAGAR
COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY AS FILED
BY THE ADMINISTRATOR DT.9.11.1993

Aggarwal.
10.Shri Gunwant Rai Jain S/O Shri J.R.Jain.
11.Shri V.K.Jain S/O Shri Shyam Lal Jain.
12.Shri Kaushal Aggarwal S/O Shri Ram Pratap Aggarwal.
13.Shri Anil Kumar Aggarwal S/O Shri Ram Kumar.
14.Shri Ajay Bansal S/O Shri Kirori Mal.
15.Shri Gurender Singh S/O Shri Laxman Dass.
16.Shri Manohar Lal S/O Shri Bahadur Chand.
17.Shri Madan Lal Aggarwal S/O Shri Mange Ram.
18.Shri Mahadev Parshad Goyal S/O Shri Radhey Kishan
Goyal.
19.Shri Satyam Lal Jain S/O Late Shri S.C.Jain.
20.Shri Vinod Kumar Jain S/O Shri Pawan Kumar Jain.
21.Shri Naval Kishore Goyal S/O Shri Naresh Chand Goyal.
22.Shri Harsh Chandra S/O Shri Kanak Mal Jain.
23.Shri Dharmi Chand Maheshwari S/O Shri Harsh Chand.
24.Smt. Manju Jain S/O Dr. Om Parkash jain.
25.Shri Shyam Lal Jain S/O Shri Ramesh Chand jain.
26.Shri Ashok Kumar Jain S/O Shri Kesho Ram Jain.
27.Shri Sagar Chand S/O Shri Raja Ram.
28.Shri Ved Parkash Mittal S/O Shri Ram Rattan Mittal.
29.Shri M.B.Singh Jain S/O Shri Sita Ram Jain.
30.Shri Munshi Ram Sharma S/O Shri Ram Chand Sharma.
31.Shri Ashok Kumar Jain S/O Lahri Mal Jain.
32.Smt. Sudershan Mali W/O Shri M.S.Mali.
33.Shri R.L.Garg S/O Shri H.S.Garg.
34.Shri Subhash Chand Jain S/O Shri Khem Chand Jain.
35.Shri Mahabir Parshad S/O Shri Tara Chand.
36.Smt. Tara Devi W/O Shri R.K.Vohra.
37.Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma S/O Shri Than Chand Sharma.
38.Smt. Chandrawati Tewari W/O Shri Sughriv Tewari.
39.Smt. Sudershan Kumari W/O Shri Ranvir Singh.
40.Smt. Suma Puri W/O Shri Virender Puri.
41.Shri Jiwan Parkash Kataria S/O Shri Mohan Lal Kataria.
42.Shri Bal Kishan Thagi S/O Shri Anil Tyagi.
43.Shri Naresh Chand jain S/O Shri Munia Mal Jain.
44.Shri Anil Kumar Singhal S/O Shri Jagdish Singhal.
45.Smt. Prem Lata Garg W/O Shri Laxman Das Garg.
46.Shri Tek Chand Jain S/O Shri Chander Bhan Jain.
47.Shri Rai Chand Jain S/O Late Shri Lal Chand Jain.
48.Smt. Sharda Pareekh S/O Shri Ram Gopal Pareekh.
49.Shri Rakesh Kumar Marwaha S/O Shri O.P.Marwah.
50.Shri Niranjan Pal Singh S/O Shri Mohar Singh.
51.Smt. Usha Rani Gupta W/O Shri Madan Lal Gupta.
52.Shri Vinod Aggarwal S/O Shri S.L.Aggarwal.
53.Shri S.P.Mehra S/O Shri Harbans Lal Mehra.
54.Shri Ajit Kumar S/O Shri Lachaman Dass.
55.Shri Jagdish Chand Bansal S/O Shri Behari Lal Bansal.
56.Shri Atul K. Khandelwal S/O Shri R.M.Khandelwal.
57.Shri Navin Kumar Jain S/O Late Shri Ajit Parshad Jain.
58.Shri Mahesh Chand jain S/O Late Shri Radhey Lal.
59.Shri Jainender Kumar Jain S/O Shri M.C.Jain.
60.Shri Jaswant Singh Gupta S/O Shri Prabhu Dyal.
61.Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta S/O Shri Ram Nath Gupta.
62.Shri Virender Kumar Jain S/O Shri K.C.Jain.
63.Shri Kanwar Sain Aggarwal S/O Shri Desh Raj Aggarwal.
64.Shri Mahesh Chand s/O Shri Sagar Chand.
65.Shri Rakesh Aggarwal S/O Shri Mahabir Parshad Aggarwal.
66.Shri Pawan Kumar Jain S/O Shri C.B.Jain.
67.Shri Dinesh Kumar Malhotra S/O Shri Kali Chand Malhotra.
68.Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta S/O Shri Om Parkash Gupta.
69.Smt. Sneh Lata W/O Shri Ram Chander Sharma.
70.Shri Parduman Kumar Jain S/O Shri Sohan Lal Jain.
71.Shri Balwant Singh Jain S/O Shri Man Singh Jain.
72.Shri Anil Kumar S/O Shri Rajendra Prasad.
73.Shri Kulwant Rai Jain.
74.Shri Rich Pal Jain.
75.Shri Ram Pratap Goyal.
76.Shri Shyam Lal Jain.
77.Smt. Shanta Ajmera.
78.Shri N.P.Mantri.
79.Shri Rattan Lal Jhawar.
80.Shri Pawan Kumar Aggarwal.
81.Shri P.P.Bansal.
82.Shri R.K.Kothari.
Sd/-9.11.93
(S.P.SEHGAL)
ADMINISTRATOR
MAITRI NAGAR COOPERATIVE
GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
OLD COURT BUILDING PARLIAMENT STREET NEW
DELHI.
ORDER
Whereas Maitri Ngr. Society is registered with the
department at Sl. No.392 (GH).
And whereas a show cause notice under section 32 of
Delhi Coop. Societies Act, 1972 was issued to the Society vide
this Office Order No.F.47/392/GH/Coop./2566 dated 11-4-90.
And whereas the reply of Society which was received on
23-4-90 was examined and found unsatisfactory on account of
on going facts.
And whereas membership of 27 members was seized
because of the reasons of non-resident of Delhi or having
properties in Delhi.
And whereas these 27 members filed an appeal before
Hon’ble Lt. Governor who remanded the case to Registrar
Coop. Societies for fresh disposal.
And whereas, in the meantime the Society enrolled 27
members in place of above mentioned 27 persons without
waiting for the outcome of decision of Registrar Coop.

Societies. This action os Society clearly indicates its malafide
intention.
And whereas Registrar Coop. Societies vide order dated
27-9-89 restored the membership of 10 members.
And whereas these 10 members were neither invited nor
allowed to participate in the celiberations of GB held on 31-12-
89 as reported by the Observer appointed by the Registrar
Coop. Societies.
This again shows malafide intention of the Society and
violation of Orders issued by Registrar Coop. Societies.
And whereas the contention of Society in its reply that
Society cannot accept these 10 members as the matter is sub-
judice in the court of Hon’ble Lt. Governor is not acceptable
since the Court has not passed any order restraining the
execution of Orders passed by the Registrar Coop. Societies.
And whereas from forgoing account it is established that
Managing Committee of society is totally negligent in
discharge of its duties and has no respect for the statutory
orders passed by Registrar Coop. Societies. The Managing
Committee is thus working in most arbitrary manner.

Now, therefore I, R. Raghuraman Joint Registrar Coop.
Societies hereby under the powers vested in me u/s 32 (1)(5)
remove the managing committee and appoint Shri K.J.R.
Burman, Director of Community Services M.C.D. as
Administrator. The Administrator is required to sort out the
above mentioned issues and submit report to the Registrar Co-
op. Societies Delhi.
The Administrator shall be entitled to an allowance of
Rs.500/- (Rs. Five Hundred Only) per month which shall be
born out of Society’s Fund.
Sd/-
(R.Raghuraman)
Joint Registrar (GH)
Co-operative Societies
No.F47/392/GH/Coop/3447/90 dated 30-5-90

Shri K.J.R. Burman,
Director Community Services,
M.C.D.
President/Secretary,
Maitri Nagar Co-op. G/H Society Ltd.
B-43 G.T.Karnal Road, Indl. Area,
Delhi.
MAITRI NAGAR COOP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY
LTD. PLOT NO.29, SECTOR NO.9, ROHINI, DELHI-34
CATEGORY WISE LIST OF FLATS

CATEGORY ‘A’ (HIG)
Sr. No. MEMBERSHIP Member’s Name Flat No.Allotted

NO.
1. 5 Sh. Anand Jain 202
2. 7 Sh. Anil Kumar Jain 106
3. 11 Sh. Ashok Kumar Goel 405
4. 32 Sh. Harsa Chandra 304
5. 34 Sh. Dharmichand 601

Maheshwari
6. 38 Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain 702
7. 39 Sh. Sagar Chand 206
8. 41 Sh. M.B. Singh Jain 103
9. 44 Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain 101
10. 45 Smt. Sudershan Mali 605
11. 50 Smt. Tara Devi 501
12. 53 Smt. Sudershan Kumari 602
13. 58 Shri Anil Kumar Goyal 402
14. 66 Shri Rakesh Kumar 403

Marwah
15. 68 Smt. Usha Rani Gupta 104

16. 71 Sh. Vinod Aggarwal 201
17. 72 Sh. S.P. Mehra 205
18. 75 Sh. Jagdish Chand 603

Bansal
19. 76 Sh. Atul Kumar 102

Khandelwal
20. 78 Sh. Mahesh Chand Jain 401
21. 79 Sh. Janender Kumar 604

Jain
22. 81 Sh. Naresh Kumar 306

Gupta
23. 84 Sh. Mahesh Chand 506
24. 75 Sh. Rakesh Aggarwal 504
25. 89 Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta 302
26. 90 Smt. Sneh Lata 606
Unallotted Flats 703, 6, 005, 505, 305, 004, 204, 406, 502, 503,
105, 203, 404, 301, 705, 303, 704.
Sd/- (Rubber Stamp)

Maitrinagar Co-op. G/E Society Ltd.
Sd/- Sd/-
10.8.88
MAITRI NAGAR COOP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.
Plot No.29, Sector No.9, Rohini, Delhi-34.
CATEGORYWISE LIST OF FLATS

CATEGORY ‘B’ (MIG)
S.No. Mambership Members Name Flat No.Allotted

No.
1. 2 Sh. Om Parkash Aggarwal 22
2. 3 Sh. Ram Chander Gupta 9
3. 16 Sh. Anand Mohan Swamy 10
4. 18 Smt. Shashi Devi 32
5. 19 Sh. Gunwant Rai Jain 3
6. 20 Sh. Virender Kumar Jain 2
7. 21 Sh. Kaushal Aggarwal 19
8. 23 Sh. Ajay Bansal 15
9. 24 Sh. Gurender Singh 33
10. 25 Sh. Manohar Lal 29
11. 26 Sh. Madan Lal Aggarwal 11
12. 27 Sh. Mahadev Prasad Goyal 38
13. 28 Sh. Shyam Lal Jain 39
14. 29 Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain 17
15. 31 Sh. Naval Kishore Gupta 31
16. 36 Smt. Manju Jain 44
17. 37 Sh. Shyam Lal Jain 24

18. 40 Sh. Ved Parkash Mittal 48
19. 46 Sh. R.L. Garg 28
20. 47 Sh. Subhash Chand Jain 4
21. 49 Sh. Mhabir Prasad 13
22. 54 Smt. Suman Puri 8
23. 57 Sh. Naresh Chand Jain 35
24. 61 Sh. Tek Chand Jain 36
25. 64 Sh. Rai Chand Jain 23
26. 65 Smt. Shardha Pareekh 37
27. 77 Sh. Naveen Kumar Jain 14
28. 80 Sh. Jaswant Singh Gupta 21
29. 86 Sh. Pawan Kumar Jain 30
30. 87 Sh. Dinesh Kumar Malhotra 1
31. 92 Sh. Balwant Singh Jain 26
Unallotted Flats No. 46, 27, 20, 12, 16, 5, 40, 25, 42, 34, 6, 18, 7.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-

10.8.88
MAITRI NAGAR COOP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.
Plot No.29, Sector No.9, Rohini, Delhi-34.
CATEGORYWISE LIST OF FLATS

CATEGORY ‘C’ (LIG)
S.No. Mambership Members Name Flat No.Allotted

No.
1. 10 Smt. Dropti Devi 51
2. 15 Sh. Phool Singh 43
3. 42 Sh. Munshi Ram Sharma 47
4. 51 Sh. Mahesh Chand Sharma 41
5. 52 Smt. Chandra Wati Tiwari 54
6. 55 Sh. Jiwan Parkash Kataria 49
7. 56 Sh. Bal Kishan Tyagi 53
8. 59 Smt. Prem Lata Garg 56
9. 67 Sh. Niranjan Pal Singh 52
10. 74 Sh. Ajit Kumar 50
11. 82 Sh. Virender Kumar Jain 55
12. 33 Sh. Kanwar Sain Aggarwal 45
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- 10.8.88

OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
DELHI ADMN., OLD COURT BUILDING, PARLIAMENT
STREET, NEW DELHI-110001.
ORDER
Whereas, it has been observed that there is dispute in the
M.C. and it has been agreed by both the groups that the elections
which has fallen due now shall be conducted by the election officer
to be appointed by the Department.
Now, therefore, I, Mrs. S. Khurana, Asstt. Registrar,
Cooperative societies, exercising the powers conferred to her u/s
3(2) of the Delhi Cooperative societies Act, 1972, do hereby appoint
Shri P.C. Kathuria as Election Officer to hold the election of the
Managing Committee in accordance with the provision of Delhi
Cooperative societies Act, Rules and Regd. Bye-laws of the society
within ONE MONTH of the issue of this order. The expenses for
this election will be met out from the funds of the society and
election programme will be fixed by the Election Officer with the
prior approval of the undersigned.
Sd/-
(Mrs. S. Khurana)
Asstt. Registrar (GH)
No.F.47/392/GH/Coop/ Dated: 14/1/88

Copy forwarded to:
1. Shri P.C. Kathuria, Election Officer.
2. The President, Secretary, Matri Nagar, Coop. Group Housing
Society Ltd., Sector-9, Plot No.29, Rohini, Delhi.
Sd/-
DELHI ADMN., OLD COURT BUILDING, PARLIAMENT
STREET, NEW DELHI-110001.
ORDER
Whereas, in exercising of powers vested in me u/s 55 of
Delhi Coop. Societies Act, 1972, I, Mrs. S. Khurana, Asstt.
Registrar, Coop. Societies, Delhi Admn. Delhi, do hereby
appoint Sh. P.C. Kathuria as an Enquiry Officer u/s 55 of Delhi
Coop. Societies Act, 1972 to conduct an enquiry the affairs of
the Maitri Nagar Coop. G/H Society Ltd.
The Enquiry Officer will conduct the said enquiry to
assess the working of the society in accordance with
Cooperative Act & Rules in force and specially in respect of the
Constitution, Management, working & Complaints received in
this office.
Sd/-
(Mrs. S.Khurana)
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (DGH)
No.F47/392/79/Coop./GH/330 Dated: 14/1/1988
Copy forwarded to:

1. Shri P.C. Kathuria, Enquiry Officer for compliance.
2. The President/Secretary, Maitri Nagar Coop. G/H society Ltd.
Sector-9, Plot No.29, Rohini, Delhi.
Sd/-
(Mrs. S.Khurana)
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (DGH)
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ROMESH BHANDARI
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR : DELHI.
Case No.9/1989-C.A.
Distt. Date of whether received from Stamps on the

Filing the appellant in person petition/Appeal.
or through counsel.
DELHI 10-1-89 through counsel. Rs.5.25ps.
In the matter of:-
Maitri Nagar Cooperative G.H.Society Ltd.,

Through its Secretary/President,
Plot No.29, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi.
..Appellant
Versus
1. The Registrar Cooperative Societies,

Parliament Street, New Delhi.
2. Smt. Savitri Devi Jain,

House No.1431, 24, Naiwala,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
..Respondents
APPLICATION FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE

APPLICANT FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDERS
DATED 9.12.88 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE
COURT.
A copy of the Order passed by the

Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi,
Dated 18.1.1989 is enclosed herewith.
OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: DELHI
Case No.9 of 1989-C.A. Application on behalf Society

for review of the orders dated 9.12.88.
Between
Maitri Nagar Coop. G.H. Society Ltd. ..Applicant
Versus
The Registrar, Coop. Societies,

and another. ..Respondent
ORDER DATED 18.1.89

(ROMESH BHANDARI, LG)
The applicant society through Shri Anand Jain seeks
review of the order dated 9.12.88 passed by this court in 24
revision petitions under-section 80 of the Delhi Co-operative
societies Act. Certain directions were issued to the Registrar
irrespective of those cases being maintainable or not and one of
the directions was that the petitioners who had filed revision
petitions were directed to make appearance before the Registrar
for the purpose of defending their cases on 27.12.1988 at 11
A.M. According to the applicant the Registrar, Co-operative
societies has refused to permit the applicant to defend its case
since there was no direction in the order as sought to be
reviewed. During the course of arguments, the representative

of the petitioner submitted that unless and until the society is
made party to those proceedings, how could it be possible for
the Registrar to adjudicate upon the issue. Further contention
raised by the representative of the petitioner is that the Registrar
has only been asked to examine the issue in terms of rule 25 of
the Delhi Coop. Society Rules and not in terms of registered
bye-laws. This is another ground raised for review of the order.
On behalf of the respondents it is stated that the present review
petition is not maintainable. ____ as such, irrespective of the
petition being maintainable or not, it is hereby ordered that the
Registrar should take action in terms of the provisions of rule
25 read with the registered bye-laws of the society. Naturally
the Registrar would call for the records of the society and such
records would be made available by the office bears of it who-
so-ever he may be. When the earlier proceedings had been in
between the members and the society, naturally the Registrar
would call for the society. There is also a direction to the
society for the maintenance of status quo, as such, this direction
has to be maintained by the office bearers of the society. The
direction for appearance before the Registrar by the petitioners
had been specific to them since they were the aggrieved persons
and they were claiming relief against the society. The
petitioner society has not brought on record in writing that the
Registrar has refused participation in the proceedings on behalf
of the society. The inquiry as ordered by the order dated
9.12.1988 cannot but be said to be an open inquiry wherein the
members as well as the office bearers of the society can agitate
their cases leaving no scope of any sort of complaint that some-
one has been left un-heard. In view of the above observations,
the present petition stands disposed off.
Sd/-
Announced. (Romesh Bhandari)
Lieutenant Governor: Delhi.
Dt.18.1.1989
IN THE COURT OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, DELHI.
Case No.47/89-CA. Application under-section 151 CPC for

review of orders dated 9.12.88 in case No.39 of 1988.
Between
Sh. Mahesh Chand,

Phase-II, Delhi. ….Applicant
Vs.
1. Registrar Coop. Societies,

New Delhi.
2. Maitri Nagar Coop. Group/Housing

Society Ltd., through its President,
Plot No.29, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi.
..Respondents
Represented by : Sh. Jetinder Kapoor, Advocate

for the applicant, none for the society, Sh. D.Soura
ARCS for RCS and Sh. R.S. Tomar, Adv. On
behalf of the persons who had applied for being
impleaded as parties.
ORDER DATED 29.3.89

(ROMESH BHANDARI, L.G.)
By this application, the applicant had sought review of
the order passed by this Court on 9.12.88 in case No.49/88-CA.
When this case was called up for hearing today the ld. counsel
for the applicant presented an application for the withdrawal of
this case, praying that it be dismissed as withdrawn and

permission be granted to approach the appropriate form. This
being the position, the application is hereby dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to file fresh application or petition
before the appropriate court.
Announced. Sd/-
(ROMESH BHANDARI)
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, DELHI.
DATED 29.3.89
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MARKANDEY SINGH :
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR : DELHI.
Case No.: 231/89-C.A.
Distt. Date ofwhether received from Stamps on the

or through counsel.
DELHI 11.10.89through counsel. Rs.5.25.
In Re:
The Maitri Nagar Co-operative Group

Housing Society Ltd.,
Delhi-34.
..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Registrar Co-operative Societies, Delhi.

Old Courts Building, Parliament Street, Delhi.
2. Shri Rich Pal Jain,

Own House at 504, Meera Bagh, Delhi.
..Respondents
Revision petition under Section 80 of the Delhi

Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 against the order
dated 27.9.1989 passed by shri K.S. Mehra,
Registrar Co-operative societies Delhi in the
enquiry regarding cessation of membership of 27
members of Maitri Nagar Co-operative Group
Housing society Ltd.
Encl.: A copy of order of Shri MARKANDEY SINGH, LT.

GOVERNOR, Delhi dated 25.6.91 is enclosed herewith.
OFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR : DELHI.
Cases No.229/89-CA. 231/89-CA to 233/89-CA & 246/89-CA

to 251/89-CA – Revision Petitions under Section 80 of the
Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972.
The Maitri Nagar Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.,

Plot No.29, Sector-IX, Rohini, Delhi-34.
..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies,

2. (1) Shri Kulwant Rai Jain,

i) 930, Moti Bagh, New Delhi.
ii) 12, Yatri Nagar, Hansi, Haryana.
(2) Shri Rich Pal Jain,

504, Meera Bagh, Delhi.
(3) Shri Ram Partap Goyal,

i) 1193, Kucha Pati Ram,
Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi.
ii) Aggarwal Bhawan,
Model Town, Bahadurgarh (Haryana).
(4) Shri Shyam Lal Jain,

AK-95, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
(5) Smt. Shanta Ajmera,

19, State Bank Colony, Delhi.
(6) Shri N.P. Mantri,

F-42, East of Kailash, New Delhi.
(7) Shri Rattan Lal Jhawar,

24/32, Shakti Nagar, Delhi.
(8) Shri Pawan Kumar Aggarwal,

46, Ram Nagar, Paharganj, New Delhi.
(9) Shri P.P. Bansal,
B-504, Meera Bagh, Delhi.
(10) Shri R.K. Kothari,

8, Ishwari Colony, Banpari Road,
Delhi.
..Respondents
Represented by Shri R.N. Bhardwaj,

Advocate for the petitioner Society,
Shri M.A. Hashmi, ARCS for
respondent No.1 and Shri R.S. Tomar,
Advocate for respondents No.2.
Order dated 25.6.1991

(Markandey Singh, L.G.)
These are 10 revision petitions filed by the Maitri Nagar
Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. under Section 80 of the
Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to
as the “Act”) taken up together for hearing against the order
passed by Shri K.S. Mehra, Registrar, Cooperative Societies
dated 27.9.1989, whereby he has reinstated the membership of
the respondents mentioned above namely:-
1. Shri Kulwant Rai Jain

2. Shri Rich Pal Jain
3. Shri Ram Partap Goyal
5. Smt. Shanta Ajmera
6. Shri N.P. Mantri
7. Shri Ratan Lal Jhawar
8. Shri Pawan Kumar Aggarwal
9. Shri P.P. Bansal
10. Shri R.K. Kothari
after a proper scrutiny and enquiry, The main argument to all
the cases advanced by the petitioner Society has been that these
members had been registered with the cooperative society out
of a mistaken belief of their residence in Delhi although they
were living outside. On this ground the petitioner Society had
expelled 27 members. The matter was referred to the Registrar,
Cooperative Societies and after scrutiny and enquiry, he came
to the conclusion that these 10 respondents had their residence
in Delhi when they were made members of the petitioner
Society and so they were being reinstated. The main argument
from the petitioner Society was a mere statement of the fact that
the respondents were not residents of Delhi and, therefore, not
entitled to membership of the petitioner Society. In one
specific case, namely, of Shri Kulwant Rai Jain, who had given
his address as B-40, Moti Bagh-1, New Delhi, which is a
government colony, no private individual is entitled to have
residence there. It appears to be suspicious on the face of it but
whatever be the faults of the govt. servant to whom the house
has been allotted, a mere fact that it is a govt. colony does not
pre-suppose that there will be no outsider living in it. I living in

the house of a govt. servant which is not a common experience.
I do not therefore find much force in this argument. Besides,
the Ld. Counsel for the respondents have come forward with
documentary evidence to support the cases of their residence in
Delhi and I have no reason to doubt their authenticity. In this
case, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner Society has also not
questioned these documents.
I, therefore, by a single order dismiss the petitions and
confirm order of reinstatement of the respondents mentioned
above in their membership of Society.
Sd/-
(MARKANDEY SINGH)
Lt. Governor, Delhi
25.6.1991
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ROMESH BHANDARI,
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: DELHI.
CASE No.176/89-C.A.
Distt. Date of whether received from Stamps on the

or through counsel.
DELHI 2.8.89 through counsel. Rs.5.25ps.
In the matter of:-
The Maitri Nagar Cooperative G.H. Society Ltd.,

Plot No.29, Sector No.9, Rohini, Delhi,
Through its Hon’y Secretary.
..Petitioner
Versus
1. The Registrar Cooperative Societies,

Delhi, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
2. Shri H.P. Sharma Election Officer,

Office of the Registrar Coop. Societies,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
..Respondents
REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION

80 OF THE DELHI COOPERATIVE
SOCIETIES ACT, 1972 AGAINST THE
ORDERS PASSED BY THE REGISTRAR
OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2 TO
HOLD THE ELECTIONS OF THE
GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. ON
19.8.89.
A Copy of the Order passed by the

Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi,
Dated 27.9.89 is enclosed herewith.
Case No.176/89-C.A. Revision petition under Sec. 80

of the Delhi Cooperative societies Act, 1972.
The Maitri Nagar Cooperative

Group Housing Society Ltd.
..Petitioner
Versus
1) The Registrar, Cooperative Societies.

2) Sh. H.P. Sharma, Election Officer.
..Respondents
Represented: Petitioner by Sh. R.N. Bhardwaj,

Advocate Respondents by Sh. D’Sourza, A.R.C.S.
Intervenors by Sh. R.S. Tomar, Advocate.
ORDER DATED 27.9.89

(ROMESH BHANDARI, J.)
Present petition is off shot of my orders dated 9.12.88
passed in 23 connected petitions of against the Society. Portion
relevant for present litigation reads as under:
(II) that the Registrar shall decide upon the issue under
rule 25 of the Rules after proper hearing to the
concerned persons by the middle of January, 1989.
He should also examine the records of the society
and to take appropriate action in terms of the
provisions of the Act and the Rules.

(III) that the Registrar should also examine the position
and status of rest of the members and report in this
behalf be submitted to me separately.
Since the elections of the Society have not been held, the
same should be completed immediately after the outcome of the
dispute with the registrar.
By virtue of the above orders, the directions were issued
to the Society to hold elections after the Registrar had decided
the question of membership of 27 members who were found
disqualified in terms of the Delhi Cooperative societies Act and
Rules.
According to the petitioners, the Registrar had neither
completed the enquiry nor disclosed when contacted whether
any enquiries have been made by him in the case of 27
members or not. In the meantime, one of the members filed a
civil suit before the court of Sh. R.S. Mahla, Sub-Judge who
stayed operation of sub-clause 3 of my aforesaid orders with the
result the Registrar could not examine the cases further. The
Society further urged that it had no information whether further
enquiry in the matter was being completed by the R.C.S. But in
the meantime, the Registrar had directed the society to hold

election on 19.8.89 and appointed an Election Officer for that
purpose. The petitioners further avers that the Registrar could
not do so unless he decides the case of 27 members whose
enquiry was ordered to be conducted by my previous orders.
In reply, the R.C.S. urged that he started examining 27
cessation cases. Thereafter he started examining cases of 72
members, the society did not cooperative and on the other hand,
one of the members obtained stay orders from the Court of Sub-
Judge which was subsequently withdrawn. Thereafter another
members filed a civil suit before Senior Sub-Judge and obtained
stay against the enquiry, as a result thereof the Registrar could
not conduct the enquiry of the balance of the 72 members.
Ultimately, it was decided that the election of the society which
were over due and were postponed due one reason or the other
should be conducted and for this purpose an Election Officer
was appointed to hold election of 19.8.89.
Main controversy from the above discussion appears to
be that the Registrar had appointed an Election Officer for
holding election without deciding status of 27 members. It has
been argued by the counsel for the petitioner and the
intervenors the Registrar could not do so unless he complied

with my orders and complete enquiry in terms thereof. In order
to resolve the matter, I directed the Registrar during course of
earlier hearings of the case to submit his report with regard to
the status of 27 members. Today, the representative of the
Registrar has filed the report which is taken on record. Now the
objections of the society, intervenors and other members stands
satisfy and they cannot agitate that the R.C.S. has not declared
the result of the enquiry Counsel for the society had reservation
about the report but the representative of the R.C.S. argued that
if the society has any objection, they can agitate at an
appropriate form and not in these proceedings. Further,
elections of the society which are already over due are being
held up for one pretext or the other and should be held without
further delay. The petitioner and intervenors also agrees that
the elections of the society should be held immediately.
Accordingly, the Registrar is directed to have the election
conducted as per rules immediately.
Announced Sd/- 27.8.89

(ROMESH
BHANDARI)
OLD COURT BUILDING PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI.
ORDER
Whereas Maitri Nagar Society is registered with the
department at Sl. No.392 (GH).
And whereas a show cause notice under section 32 of
Delhi Coop. Societies Act, 1972 was issued to the Society vide
this Office Order No.F.47/392/GH/Coop./2566 dated 11.4.90.
And whereas the reply of society which was received on
23.4.90 was examined and found unsatisfactory on account of
ongoing facts.
And whereas membership of 27 members was seized
because of the reasons of non-resident of Delhi or having
properties in Delhi.
And whereas these 27 members filed an appeal before
Hon’ble Lt. Governor who remanded the case to Registrar
Coop. Societies for fresh disposal.
And whereas, in the meantime the society enrolled 27
members in place of above mentioned 27 persons without
waiting for the outcome of decision of Registrar Coop.
Societies. This action of Society clearly indicates its malafide
intention.
And whereas Registrar Coop. Societies vide order dated
27.9.89 restored the membership of 10 members.
And whereas these 10 members were neither invited nor
allowed to participate in the deliberations of G.B. held on
31.12.89 as reported by the Observer appointed by the Registrar
Coop. Societies.
This again shows malafide intention of the society and
violation of Orders issued by Registrar Coop. Societies.
And whereas the contention of Society in its reply that
Society cannot accept these 10 members as the matter is sub-
judice in the Court of Hon’ble Lt. Governor is not acceptable
since the Court has not passed any order restraining the
execution of Orders passed by the Registrar Coop. Societies.
And whereas from forgoing account it is established that
Managing Committee of Society is totally negligent in
discharge of its duties and has no respect for the statutory
orders passed by Registrar Coop. societies. The Managing
Committee is thus working in most arbitrary manner.
Now, therefore I, R. Raghuraman Joint Registrar Coop.
Societies hereby under the powers vested in me u/s 32 (1) (5)
remove the managing committee and appoint Shri K.J.R.

Burman, Director of Community Services M.C.D. as
Administrator. The Administrator in
________________________ and submit report to the
Registrar Co-op. Societies Delhi.
The Administrator shall be entitled to an allowance of
Rs.500/- (Rs. Five Hundred Only) per month which shall be
born out of Society’s Fund.
Sd/-
(R.Raghuraman)
Co-operative Societies.
No.F47/392/GH/Coop/3447/90 dated 30.5.90
Shri K.J.R. Burman,

M.C.D.
Maitri Nagar Co-op. G.H. Society Ltd.
B-43 G.T. Karnal Road, Indl. Area,
Delhi.
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,
DELHI ADMN. OLD COURT’S BUILDING PARLIAMENT
STREET : NEW DELHI.
ORDER
In continuation of this office order No.F.47/302/
Coop./GH/3447 dated 31.5.90, the period of supersession of
Maitry Nagar Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. has been
extended by the Registrar, Coop. Societies for a period of one
year i.e. 1.12.90 to 30.11.91 under the provisions of Section
32(1)(b) of Delhi Coop. societies Act, 1972.
However, in place of Sh. K.J.R. Burman, Sh. A.D. Ahuja,
Assistant Registrar will manage the affairs of the society, as
Administrator.
Sd/-
(U.R.KAPOOR)
JOINT REGISTRAR (GROUP HOUSING)
No.F.47/392/Coop./GH/ Dated the 13/3/91
Copy to:
1. Sh. A.D. Ahuja, Asstt. Registrar, Coop. Societies, New
Delhi.
2. Asstt. Registrar (Audit).
3. Erst’ while President, Maitry Nagar Coop. G/H Society
Ltd., 26, C.C. Colony, Opp. Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi-
110007.
Sd/-
(U.R.KAPOOR)
JOINT REGISTRAR (GROUP HOUSING)
C.M. NO. 4034 of 1992

IN
CIVIL WRIT NO. 3871 of 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
D.C. Maheshwari & Ors. ..PETITIONERS
Versus
The Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors.

..RESPONDENTS
REPORT OF THE LOCAL COMMISSIONER
1. WHEREAS vide orders of this Hon’ble Court dated May
28, 1992 in the above noted Writ Petition I was appointed
as the Local Commissioner to visit the Maitri Nagar
Group Housing Society, Ltd., Plot No.29, Sector IX,
Rohini, Delhi-110083, inter-alia, to make a report as to
the persons who are in actual physical possession of the
99 flats constructed by the said Society and matters allied
thereto as indicated in the order of the Court. I was
further required by the order of the Court to place looks
on the flats which are unoccupied.

2. AND WHEREAS pursuant to a copy of the orders of the
Court made available a letter was addressed by the Local
Commissioner to the petitioners and the respondents and
their respective Counsels in the Writ Petition. All
together 39 letters were addressed to the parties
intimating them that the Local Commissioner proposed to
implement the orders of this Hon’ble Court on June 13,
1992 at 10.00 AM while requesting the parties to make it
convenient to be present at that time. A copy of the letter
sent is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE I.
3. AND WHEREAS on the said date, time and place the
persons mentioned in the Rough Report of Inspection
accompanied the Local Commissioner in the process of
identification of flats. The Rough Report and its typed
copy are collectively annexed as ANNEXURE II. The
said rough report may be read as an integral part of this
report.
4. The 99 flats constructed by the society are contained in 6
blocks. These 99 flats are of three categories, namely,
Low Income Group, Middle Income Group and Higher

Income Group. There are 12 Low Income Group flats,
44 Middle Income Group flats and 43 High Income
Group flats. For the sake of ready reference a rough site
plan is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure III.
The LIG flats are as under:

Ist Floor -do- 43, 51, 52
nd
2 Floor -do- 45, 53, 54
rd
3 Floor -do- 47, 55, 56
Total: 12
The MIG Flats are as under:
Ground Floor Flat No.1,2,9,10,17,18,25,26,33,34 & 42
Ist Floor -do- 3,4,11,12,19,20,27,28,35,36,44
nd
2 Floor -do- 5,6,13,14,21,22,29,30,37,38 & 46
rd
3 Floor -do- 7,8,15,16,23,24,31,32,39,40 & 48.
Total: 44
The HIG Flats are as under:

Ist Floor -do- 101,102,103,104,105,106
nd
2 Floor -do- 201,202,203,204,205,206
rd
3 Floor -do- 301,302,303,304,305,306
th
4 Floor -do- 401,402,403,404,405,406
th
5 Floor -do- 501,502,503,504,505,506
th
6 Floor -do- 601,602,603,604,605,606
th
7 Floor -do- 702,703,704,705
Total:43
Grand Total: 99
The Society in its Notice Board of flats has
renamed the said three categories of flats as under:
LIG Flats are being called MIG Flats

MIG Flats are being called HIG Flats
HIG Flats are being called Super HIG Flats.
5. That I had requested the photographer to take
photographs of the various sign boards of the society
inside its premises on the main gate as also of the
unoccupied/vacant/locked and unfinished flats of the
Society. Consequently photographs were taken of the
various sign boards, name boards of the Society as also
of Flat Nos.2,13,14,15,17,19,28,30,33,36,38,45,50,54,55,
303,403,502,601,602,603,704,703 & 705.
A perusal of the photographs of the sign boards of
the society indicate that the society is also being held out
in the name of Anand Apartment which name is
prominently painted on the premises. These photographs
of the name boards of the Society are from 30 to 42.
6. A Scrutiny of the flats reveals that Flat Nos. and names
had been painted in black paint on all the flats recently
except flat No.703 and 705 where marking were in green
paint and some other flats for instance 15, 303 where no
name were printed. The detailed factual position from
the site inspect of the flats is contained in Annexure IV
annexed hereto along with the photographs. This
annexure indicates the flat No., the name that has been
painted near the entrance of the flat and the remarks of
inspection. The discrepancy between the name painted at
the entrance and the name on the sign board is contained
in Annexure V.
Cooperative Group Housing Society photograph of
which have been annexed herein before flat
Nos.1,4,17,18,30,33,36,38,41,45,50,54,55,403,602 and
605 have not yet been allotted nor occupied and their
possession is with the Society. However, in another sign
Board of Anand Apartment names appear against the said
flats.
7. Flat No.40 was vacant, unoccupied had an outer door
existing and their flat has been locked by the Local
Commissioner in terms of the orders of the Court. The
keys of the said flat are in the possession of the Local
Commissioner and shall be produced as and when
directed. The details of the lock placed and the manner
of sealing are contained in the rough report of inspection.
8. Apart from the above one flat that has been locked by the
Local Commissioner 22 flats do not have any doors and

consequently the orders of this Hon’ble Court directing
the Local Commissioner to place his own lock on
unoccupied flats could not be implemented. These flats
are indicated separately in the statement at Annexure VI.
A majority of the other flats are unfinished and
unoccupied. Some are in the process of being finished.
These flats have been independently locked and are
indicated very distinctly in the said Annexure.
9. That an undated letter was sent by Shri Anand Jain
President of the Society was sent to the Local
Commissioner and was received in the office of the Local
Commissioner on 14.6.1992. The same is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure VII.
10. The negatives of the photographs are contained in a
sealed envelop which is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure VIII. The summary of unoccupied flats is as
order. This summary relates to unoccupied flats upon the
understanding of the orders of this Hon’ble Court
directing the Local Commissioner to place locks on
unoccupied flats, consequently this summary relates to

unoccupied flats whether unfinished or in the process of
finishing or furnished but unoccupied.
Total No.
1. Flat locked by the Local Commissioner No.40 1
2. Flats without doors and obviously unoccupied

2,13,14,15,17,19,28,30,36,8,45,54,55,303,403, 22
502,602, 603,605,703,704,705.
3. Flats unoccupied without doors which do not 2

have provisions of locking 33, 50.
4. Flats locked & unfinished:

24,41,42,47,304,305,401,406,503,506,604,606. 12
5. Flats that are locked and state of the flat not known.
4,11,12,20,21,22,23,27,29,32,37,43,51,56,202. 15
6. Flats that are finished/furnished but unoccupied.

102,103,105,201 & 205. 5
----------------------
TOTAL 57
----------------------
Sd/-
(ARVIND K.NIGAM)
Advocate
NEW DELHI K-10, Hauz Khas Enclave,
New Delhi-110016.
DATED: 26.6.92 Local Commissioner.
FLAT NO.5
This flat was not allotted in the draw of lots held on 10.8.88.
On inspection by the Local Commissioner
Shri J.S.Kalra was found in possession who was claiming that
he is in occupation and possession for the last 2 years.
As per status report filed by the President
Shri J.S.Kalra claims to be owner as he had made the payment
and obtained the receipt from Shri Anand Jain (the than
President).
FLAT NO.6
This flat was not allotted in the draw of lots.
At the time of inspection by the Local Commissioner
The flat was in occupation of Shri S.K.Arora who claims to be
tenant of Shri G.K.Garg.
As per report filed by the President
the flat is in occupation and possession of Shri Jai Shri Garg
who claims to be owner as he has made the payment and
obtained the receipts from Shri Anand Jain, the than President.
FLAT NO.7

Shri G.K.Sharma was found in possession who claimed that he
is in possession since 1990 and in occupation since November
1991.
As per the report submitted by the President
Shri G.K.Sharma claims to be owner as he had made the
payment to Shri Anand Jain and obtained the receipt and
possession.
FLAT NO.12
the name shown on the board at the entrance was A.Dogra but
the flat was locked and state of flat was not known.
As per the report of the President
Shri Akshay Dogra claims to be owner as he had made the
payment to Shri Anand Jain and obtained the receipt and the
possession.
FLAT NO.16

the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri R.Lal claims to
be original member No.93 and in possession since 22.8.90 and
in occupation from October 1990.
the flat is in possession of Shri Banwari Lal Sharma who claims
to be owner but no record of payment available except no dues
certificate issued by Shri Anand Jain, the than President.
FLAT NO.18
the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri Rajesh Gulati
who claims to have purchase from the original owner with
fixtures and fittings for the last six months.
the flat is in possession of Shri Rajesh Gulati who claims to be
G.P.A. of Smt. Promila Aggarwal.
FLAT NO.20
the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri Subhash Singla.
The premises were locked and the state of flat was not known.
the flat is in possession of Shri Virender Aggarwal who claims
to be G.P.A. of Shri T.K.Gupta.
FLAT NO.25
the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri Shyam Lal Jain
who was actually allotted the flat No.24 but at the entrance the
board disclosed of the name of Shri Shyam Lal Jain with regard
to Flat No.25 whereas the name of Shri Anil Kumar was shown
at Flat No.24. The said Shri Shyam Lal was in occupation of
Flat No.25 at the time of inspection of by the Local
Commissioner who claims to be original member vide
Membership No.37 and in possession from January 1990 and in
occupation since October 1990.
The Local Commissioner in its report pointed out that flat
No.24 though at the entrance it was shown as of Anil Kumar
but the premises work unfinished and the finishing work was in
progress. Premises were locked.

the flat is in possession of Shri Shyam Lal Jain who has
exchange the said flat with Shri Anil Kumar who was in
occupation of flat No.24.
NOTE:
It is important that neither the said Anil Kumar was a
member as per the list prepared by the Administrator
and the flat No.25 was not put in the draw of lots – not
allotted the question of exchange of the flat does not
arise.
FLAT NO.27
the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri Bhasin. The
premises were locked and the state of flat was not known.
the flat is in possession of Shri Rakesh Bhasin who claims to be
owner of the flat as he had made the money obtained the receipt
and the possession from Shri Anand Jain, the than President.
FLAT NO.34
the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri Parveen Singla
who claimed he had shifted in the premises in the May 1991.
the flat is in possession of Shri Parveen Singla who claims to be
owner as he had made the money obtained the receipt and the
possession from Shri Anand Jain, the than President.
FLAT NO.40
the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri Anil Kumar, the
premises were unoccupied, unfinished. The Local
Commissioner put the lock and submitted the Key before this
Hon’ble Court.
the flat is in possession of Smt. Rekha Aggarwal W/O Late
Shri Anil Aggarwal as this Hon’ble Court was pleased to hand
over the Keys on the representation that she was allottee of the
flat in the draw of lots held on 10.8.1988. Accordingly the L.R.

of said Late Shri Anil Aggarwal is in occupation and possession
of the premises.
FLAT NO.42
the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri G.K.Suri, the
premises were unoccupied, unfinished but locked.
the flat is vacant.
FLAT NO.45
This flat was allotted in the draw of lots and was allotted to Shri
Kanwar Sain Aggarwal.
the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri R.Kumar the
premises were without door, window and some building
material in the shape of ply board two grills lying in the
premises unoccupied and used as a storage by the occupant of
flat No.46 as stated by her. Even at that time Shri Kanwar Sain
Jain made it clear that he is the original allottee as per the draw
of lots but possession has not been given to him since dispute
regarding allotment of HIG flat is pending.

the flat was allotted to Shri Kanwar Sain Jain and the premises
were locked.
FLAT NO.46
the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri Parduman Jain.
Mrs. Janak mother of Shri Sanjeev Kumar who was in
occupation stated that they are tenant for last 3 months and they
are using the flat No.45 as storage space.
The flat is in possession of Shri Parduman Kumar who is one of
the member as per record of the Society and order of the R.C.S.
dt.6.7.88 regarding the clearance of the list of members for
allotment of flats.
NOTE:
As per the list filed by the Administrator dt.9.11.93 in
pursuance of the order of this Hon’ble Court Shri Parduman
Kumar Jain S/O Shri Sohan Lal was the bonafide member as
per the membership No.91.

HIG CATEGORY
FLAT NO.004
the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri B.S.Sarna the
premises were since to be occupied and locked.
the flat is in possession of Shri B.S.Sarna but premises are
locked no record is available in respect of Shri B.S.Sarna
regarding his membership and as per the information given by
the Welfare Association of the Society.
FLAT NO.005
the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri Arun Singla.
The premises were since to be occupied and locked.
the flat is in possession of Shri Arun Singla who claims to be

FLAT NO.006
the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri H.R.Lal who
claims to be the owner being member since about 1988 and in
possession from July 1990 and shifted in December 1990.
the flat is in possession of Shri H.R.Lal who claims to be owner
as he had made the money obtained the receipt and the
FLAT NO.105
the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri Chander. The
premises locked, furnished, unoccupied. It means there has
been no entry into the flat for some length of time. The
furniture was covered with dust.
the flat is in possession of Shri B.K.Chaddha who claims to be

FLAT NO.203
the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri T.Waura/Mrs.
Trilochan Kaur who claimes to be member of the Society since
1988 shifted in June 1991 share certificate of Society serial
No.313 dt.9.4.88 of 51 share shown.
the flat is in possession of Smt. Trilochan Kaur who claims to
be owner as he had made the money obtained the receipt and
the possession from Shri Anand Jain, the than President.
FLAT NO.204
the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri G.Madan. Mrs.
Lakshmi W/O Shri Madan who was present on the spot stated
that she is in occupation of the flat for the last about 2 years and
no other information was supplied. The Local Commissioner
was informed by the neighbours that Shri Madan was present in
the flat which Smt. Lakshmi has denied.

the flat is in possession of Smt. Lakshmi Devi Madan who
claims to be owner as he had made the money obtained the
receipt and the possession from Shri Anand Jain, the than
President.
FLAT NO.301
the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri K.N.Tanwar.
The Local Commissioner was informed by Mr. Tanwar that
they were occupation for about last 1 year and that possession
had been handed over in 1990.
the flat is in possession of Shri K.N.Tanwar who claims to be
FLAT NO.303
the name shown at the entrance shown as ‘Blank’. The
premises were unfinished, unoccupied, no door.

The flat is vacant.
FLAT NO.305
the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri K.R.Punia who
claimes to be owner in possession since 1991, occupation for
the past 7-8 months information rendered by Shri Ashwani
Punia S/O Shri K.R.Punia.
the flat is in possession of Shri K.R.Punia who claims to be
FLAT NO.404
the name shown at the entrance shown as Dr. Manju Singla.
The prermises were locked and seems to be occupied.

the flat is in possession of Dr. Manju Singla who claims to be
FLAT NO.406
the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri Pardeep Anand.
The premises were, unfinished, unoccupied, name painted on
the door. Locked.
the flat is in possession of Smt. Bimla Devi who claims to be
owner by virtue of G.P.A.
FLAT NO.502
the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri C.L.Aggarwal.
Name painted. Premises unfinished, no door, unoccupied as
shown in photograph No.21.
The flat is vacant.

FLAT NO.503
the name shown at the entrance shown as Dr. Indresh
Aggarwal. The premises were locked. Name painted and
board existing. Flat is unoccupied there is a carpenter in the
Drawing room.
the flat is in possession of Dr. Indresh Aggarwal who claims to
be owner as he had made the money obtained the receipt and
the possession from Shri Anand Jain, the than President.
FLAT NO.505
the name shown at the entrance shown as Smt. Sudesh Devi
Gupta. Who claims to be in possession and occupation seems
July 1990 with membership since 1988 and membership
number is 30.
the flat is in possession of Smt. Sudesh Gupta who claims to be
FLAT NO.601
This flat was allotted in the draw of lots to the petitioner No.1
Shri D.C.Maheshwari.
the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri Sunil Chaddha
painted in white on the Grill. The premises locked there is a
telephone instrument in the premises but it can not be said it is
installed or not. Seems to be finished. There is an outral grill
that has been placed enclosing galary photograph No.23. The
petitioner No.1 D.C.Maheshwari informed the Local
Commissioner that he is the original member of the society vide
membership No.34 since 1979 and was allotted his flat in the
original allotment by the D.D.A. but the possession has not
been given.
The flat is in possession of Shri Rajesh Banga who states
himself representing Shri Sushil Chaddha.

FLAT NO.602
This flat was allotted in the draw of lots to Smt. Sudershan
Kumari.
the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri M.Kumar. The
premises were unfinished, no door, photograph No.24.
the flat is in possession of Shri J.P.Aggarwal but flat is locked,
status quo order by Trial Court of Delhi. No record of
membership of Shri J.P.Aggarwal is available with the Society.
FLAT NO.703
the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri V.Kumar, name
painted in the premises, unfinished, unoccupied, no door,
photograph No.27.
The flat is vacant.
FLAT NO.704

the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri Nipun. The
premises, unfinished, unoccupied, photograph No.28.
The flat is vacant.
FLAT NO.705
the name shown at the entrance shown as Shri K.C.Aggarwal.
Name freshly printed in Green. Mr. Aggarwal is prersent and
states that he has possession from 1990, Society member
No.1998. Membership number presently not available. Flat in
process of being finished. No outer door existing. He further
states that electrical connection is existing in his name for the
last 1 year. Finishing work is in progress. Photograph No.29.
the flat is in possession of Shri Nagender Mishra who claims to
be a tenant of Shri K.C.Aggarwal. The record of Shri
K.C.Aggarwal’s membership not available with the Society.

CWP NO.3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
D.C.Maheshwari …PETITIONER
Versus
REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

& ORS. …RESPONDENTS
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
CWP NO. 2890 of 1995
MAITRI NAGAR COOPERATIVE GROUP

HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. …PETITIONER
Versus
MEHAR CHAND JAIN & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
CWP NO. 5398 of 1997
SANTOSH JAIN & ORS. …PETITIONERS
Versus
REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES

& ORS. …RESPONDENTS
REPORT OF
ARVIND K. NIGAM
ADVOCATE
COURT COMMISSIONER
APPOINTED VIDE ORDERS DATED 10.5.2007
1. That this Hon’ble Court vide orders dated 10.5.2007
appointed me as the Court Commissioner to make a
report to this Hon’ble Court upon consideration of
various objections and claims of the contesting parties
with my recommendations.
2. In pursuance to the orders of the Court:-
(a) 22 newly added members have filed their
representation through Mrs. Mala Goel, Advocate,
(b) The Society filed a representation through Mr.
Rakesh Mahajan, Advocate.
(c) Mr. Rajesh Banga filed his representation through
Mr. Tanuj Khurana, Advocate.
(d) Mr. R.D. Gupta and Mr. Ram Prakash Shorewala
filed their representation through Mr. R.K. Gupta,
Advocate.
(e) Mr. N.P.Mantri, Mr. Rattan Lal Jhawar, Smt.
Shanta Ajmera, and Mr. D.C. Maheshwari, filed

their representation through Mr. Anil Aggarwal,
Advocate.
(f) Mr. Mehar Chand Jain and Mrs. Santosh Jain and
Mrs. Savitri Devi Jain filed their representation
through Mr. S.S. Jain, Advocate.
(g) Mr. Richpal Jain filed his representation in person.
Parties placed before me their respective stands.
Oral hearings were also granted over several days to Ms.
Mala Goel, Advocate, Mr.Rakesh Mahajan, Advocate,
Mr. Tanuj Khurana, Advocate, Mr.S.S. Jain Advocate,
Mr. R.K. Gupta Advocate, Mr. Anil Aggarwal,
Advocate, enable them to make their respective
submissions. Queries were also put to them and their
written responses thereto have also been considered.
3. The salient undisputed factual position from the records
of the case is as under, (pages mentioned are from the
records of CWP No.3871 of 1991 D.C. Maheshwari &
Ors. Vs. Registrar Co-operative societies and Ors. unless
otherwise specified).
(1) The Society was formed in 1979 with 99 members.

(2) There are 99 Flats in the Society, these comprise
of:-
43 – HIG/A type;
44 – MIG/B type; and
12 – LIG/C type.
(3) Vide orders dated 24.2.1988, membership of 27
members was ceased/expelled. (see page 40)
(4) D.C. Maheshwari is not an expelled member.
(5) The 27 expelled members impugned their
expulsion/cessation of memberships in the Society.
(6) The Lt. Governor vide orders dated June 1/2, 1988
stayed the order of 24.2.1988 of
expulsion/cessation of memberships of 27
members in the society. (see page 42)
(7) On August 10, 1988 draw of lots was conducted
only for 69 Flats/members. (see page 56-60 of
CWP No.5398/97) The name of D.C. Maheshwari
was included in this draw of lots and he was
allotted Flat No.601. This Flat was alleged to be in
occupation of Sushil Kumar Chaddha at the time

of inspection in 1992 and is now in occupation of
Rajesh Banga.
(8) On 9.12.1988 the revision petition of the expelled
members was decided by the Lt. Governor, the
order dated 24.2.1988 weas set-aside and the
matter remanded back to the Registrar Societies
for fresh inquiry. Status-quo was directed to be
maintained. (see page 45)
(9) On 18.01.1989 the Society filed a Review Petition
before the Lt. Governor which was dismissed on
18.1.1989. (see page 54). A Second Review was
filed by the Society before the Lt. Governor which
was dismissed on 29.3.1989 (see page 56A).
(10) On 27.9.1989 the Registrar Societies passed an
order after enquiry and restored the membership of
10 members and declined to restore the
membership of 17 members. (see page 57) Cross
petitions were preferred against this order before
the Lt. Governor by the4 unsuccessful parties.

(11) 17 members whose membership was not restored
filed Revision Petitions before the Lt. Governor.
Vide orders of 7.4.1993, 22.6.1993 and 22.8.1993
the Lt. Governor was pleased to set-aside the
orders in respect of 16 of the 17 members and
remanded the cases back to the RCS. (see page 42
of CWP No.5398/97). The one person whose
membership was not restored being N.C.Goel.
Pursuant to the remand, vide orders dated
15.6.1994 (see page 51 of CWP No.2890 of 1955)
the RCS restored the membership of 16 members.
The Society impugned these orders before the
Revisional Authority. Vide orders dated 20.9.1994
the Financial Commissioner (see page 69 of CWP
No.2890 of 1995) was pleased to dismiss the
Revision Petition of the Society in respect of
restored the membership of 16 persons.
The Society has preferred a CWP No.2890
of 1995 against the order dated 20.9.1994 of the
Financial Commissioner initially only against
Mehar Chand Jain, subsequently the Society has

filed an application seeking to implead the 15 other
members whose membership was restored by the
order of the RCS of 15.6.1994.
(12) Society preferred a cross Revision Petition against
the order dated 27.9.1989 of the RCS restoring the
membership of 10 persons. This was dismissed on
25.6.1991 by the Lt. Governor (see page 68). The
issue of the membership of these 10 members thus
attained a quietus. They were deemed to be lawful
(13) In 1991 D.C. Maheshwari & other members of the
Society filed a Writ Petition in the Delhi High
Court being WP(C) No.3871/1991 in
representative capacity for various reliefs.
(14) This WP(C) No.3871/1991 came up for hearing,
inter-alia, on 16.12.1991 and the Hon’ble Court,
inter-alia, recorded the statement of Mr. Anand
jain President of the society and his inability to
answer the question as to where the Original
Records of the Society were. The Hon’ble Court
was pleased to record that the effect of the same

would be taken into consideration by the RCS &
Lt. Governor when they take action under the Act.
(15) On 28.5.1992 on an application of the members for
appointment of receiver and Local Commissioner.
The Hon’ble Court appointed Mr. Arvind K.
Nigam, Advocate as the Local Commissioner with
directions to Report as to the persons in actual
physical possession of the 99 Flats as also to take
possession of the vacant Flats.
(16) On 26.6.1992 a detailed Report was submitted by
the Local Commissioner.
(17) On 20.7.2001 this Hon’ble Court directed that Flat
No.602 was to be given to Smt. Sudershan Kumari
who was an original allottee of this Flat in the
draw of lots of 10.8.1988. On 27.8.2001 demand
letter was given by the Society to her for a demand
of Rs.1,26,650/- plus interest of Rs.2,25,771/-.
Thereafter a CM No.10675/01 was filed for
directing delivery of possession.

(18) Vide Orders dated 12.8.2005 (corrected on
9.1.2006) this Hon’ble Court issued directions
directing that on payment of Rs.8,00,000/- (after
reconciliation of amounts paid) without prejudice,
specified Flats be given to the following:-
a) D.C.Maheshwari 0 Flat No.601A
b) Legal representatives of petitioner No.2 –
Flat No.502.
c) R.K.Kothari – Flat No.704.
d) Richpal Jain – Flat No.703.
e) Pavan Kumar Aggarwal – Flat No.303
Society was also asked to explain how the
Flat No.601A was not given to D.C.Maheshwari
and that the same be given to him forthwith. No
explanation of the society has been brought to my
notice in pursuance to the order of the Court dated
12.8.2005.
(19) On application of Rajesh Banga claiming through
Respondent No.38 Sushil Kumar Chadha, for
emergent reasons as recorded in the order of
18.8.2005, the Hon’ble Court ex-parte stayed the

direction directing the Society to give possession
of Flat 601A to D.C. Maheshwari.
4. The dispute arises because the Society claims in its
pleadings that on 2.3.1988 they purport to have held a
meeting to record the expulsion of 27 members (expelled
vide orders dated 24.2.1988) and in lieu thereof claim to
have inducted 27 new members (the original minutes are
missing per statement of Anand Jain President of the
Society – as recorded before this Hon’ble Court in its
order dated 16.2.1991).
A perusal, however, of the photocopy of the
purported minutes of 2.3.1988 leaves much to be desired.
(Photocopy of part of these minutes are filed by Rajesh
Banga claiming through the Respondent No.38, as
obtained from the RCS under the Right to Information
Act 2005/Freedom of Information Act 2002/Delhi right
to Information Act 2001 and are at page 1489-90). Mr.
S.S. jain Advocate has filed photocopy of the said
purported minutes along with English translation at page
64-73 of the submissions filed before me of Mehar
Chand Jain). The following are the obvious errors

apparent from the face of these purported minutes of
2.3.1988:
(1) The Status report of the RCS, filed through Kamal
Deep Advocate, states that the induction of 27
members on 2.3.1988 was without approval of the
RCS and is illegal, not in conformity with the
provisions of the DCS Act and the Rules
thereunder.
(2) Per Rule 65(5) minutes are required to be signed
by all those present in the meeting. The meeting
claims to have commenced with 7 members but is
signed only by 2 persons – the President and the
Secretary.
(3) New members are to be inducted by majority
present from the waiting list and in accordance
with the procedure established in that behalf. The
purported minutes are not signed by a majority as
stated herein before.
(4) A reading of the purported minutes of 2.3.1988
suggests that while accepting the expulsion of 27
members (vide orders of 24.2.1988) the Society

has resolved to forward the names of 27 proposed
members to the RCS for approval.
If the matter had remained at this stage one
could have understood the bonafides of the society.
The matter however did not remain at this stage.
While on the one hand they resolved to forward 27
names to the RCS, on the other hand they went
ahead and confirmed the names of 33 persons
(different from the 27 agreed to be forwarded to
the RCS except for one namely Banwari Lal) as
new members of the Society.
(5) These 33 purportedly newly enrolled members
have been given possession of Flats pursuant to an
alleged draw of lots of 10.4.1990 as claimed by the
22 newly added members in their written
submission before me.
(6) The mismanagement in the Society is evident from
the fact that despite D.C.Maheshwari not being an
expelled member and a person whose name was
entered in the draw of lots of 10.8.1988 and who
was allotted Flat No.601, the possession of this

Flat was given by the Society to one Sushil K.
Chaddha who has since claimed to have sold the
same to one Rajesh Banga.
(6) The fact that new members had been enrolled was
never brought to the notice of the Lt. Governor, as
is evidence from a reading of the order of the Lt.
Governor dated June 1/2, 1988 and the final order
dated 9.12.1988 directing status quo to be
maintained.
(7) The Society has now before me filed their
submissions to queries raised by me in the hearing
of 28.7.2007. In their submissions the Society has
disassociated themselves from the photocopy of
the minutes of 2.3.1988 alleging them to be
fabricated.
(8) The Society seeks to rely on their Audit Report of
1987-88 (the accounting year being July 1 to June
30) See page 95). This Audit report is dated
28.7.1989 and makes reference to some minutes of
2.3.1988, however, the total number members is
shown as 98 including the 27 disputed members

i.e. those who had approached the Court. The
Audit Report records that in the meeting purported
to have been held on 2.3.1988, 27 applications
from new members for membership of the Society
were received, and which were purportedly
approved however in violation of Rule 30(2) no
intimation was sent to these new members.
(9) The Audit Report dated 28.7.1989 for the year
1987-88 also records that payments of
Rs.13,75,200/- received from these purportedly
newly appointed members have been kept in a
suspense account. (see poara 2.6, 2.7 at page 104-
105). Per para 5.15 at page 111 that only
Rs.1,43,659.76 was due from members as on
30.6.1988 towards loans etc.).
(10) In the Audit Report for the year 1988-89 (see page
128) there is mention of the fact that by reason of
the stay granted in the proceedings initiated by 27
expelled members, the enrollment of 27 new
members does not find mention.

(11) If the issue of membership had not been confirmed
for the 27 newly enrolled members, it is not
understood as to how the Society in violation of
the settled procedure and the orders of the Court,
purportedly held a draw of lots on 10.4.1990
without clearance from the DDA and the RSC to
allot Flats amongst these newly enrolled members.
(12) The Society and the 22 members, in their written
response to queries, have now disassociated
themselves from these minutes of 2.3.1988,
alleging them to be forged photocopies.
(13) The Original minutes ought to have been in the
possession of the Society and produced by them.
This, the Society claims is lost. The Primary
Evidence is missing. Secondary evidence
produced is photocopy from the record of the RCS
(obtained under the Right to Information Act
2005/Freedom of Information Act 2002/Delhi
Right to Information Act 2001) as indicated
hereinbefore. This is alleged, now to be
forged/fabricated. Evidently there is no material

proof to substantiate the meeting of 2.3.1988
except for the collateral document of the Audit
Reports for the years 1987-88 and 1988-29 and the
pleadings without proof.
5. Shri Anand Jain has filed CM 309 of 2001 (see page 926-
930) with his affidavit recording therein in…… “para 5
that in fact Respondents 10-26 and 28 to 38 are
unauthorized occupants in their respective Flats. They
are not required to be allotted Flats in the Society and/or
should not be allowed to remain in unauthorized
possession … at the cost of bonafide members and
entitled allottees. They are required to be removed from
those very Flats.” Further more in … “para 8 That some
of the Respondents out of 10 to 26 and 28 to 38 have also
deposited certain amounts with the Society, that also
without authorization … and even some have not paid
even a single penny on account of cost of land and cost
of construction…”.
There is no reply to this application of Anand Jain,
by any of the non-applicants, on the record of the High
Court.
The Society now claims, in its written response,
that Mr. Anand Jain did not authorize the filing of this
Application with his Affidavit and that the signatures of
Mr. Anand Jain are forged. In support of which Affidavit
of Anand Jain purported to have been affirmed on
30.7.2007 is filed before me. The affidavit of anand Jain
alleges the application CM No.309 of 2001 to have been
filed without his authorization. He did not instruct the
Advocate Shri Ashok Kumar to file that application. He
alleges his signatures to be forged on the application and
affidavit in support thereof. A photocopy of which
affidavit dated 30.7.2007 is Annexure-A hereto.
This purported Affidavit of Mr. Anand Jain seems
to be incorrect. CM No.309 of 2001 was not filed by Mr.
Ashok Kumar Advocate as now alleged. It was filed by
Mr. N.P.Singh Advocate Chamber 134, Bawa Gurcharan
Singh Block, Tis Hazari, Delhi. In this context it may be
further noted that the same advocate has also filed C.M.
No.10150 of 2000 on behalf of Anand Jain (see pages
920-925) enclosing the medical certificate of Anand Jain
as well. Signatures of Anand Jain on the admitted record

do appear to be similar as well. The original affidavit
dated 30.7.2007 of Anand Jain has not been placed
before me. Perhaps it has been filed on the record of the
Hon’ble Court. The assertions made in the said affidavit
dated 30.7.2007 of Anand Jain appear to be false and self
serving.
6. It is the case of the Society and the purported newly
enrolled members (enrolled in the alleged meeting of
2.3.1988) that:
1. The expulsion of the 27 members was valid;
2. The induction of new members in the meeting of
2.3.1988 was valid;
3. The new members have paid the entire money to
the Society.
4. On 10.4.1990 the Society held a draw of lots
through which the newly enrolled members were
allotted Flats.
5. In 1995 the newly enrolled 22 members formed an
RWA and several of the 22 members are holding
posts in the RWA.

6. On 02.02.1996 the DDA took out office notice for
regularization of draw of lots as one time scheme
to societies to regularize their allotment of Flats
which were allotted by the societies.
7. On 13.03.1996 the Registrar took out circular
regarding one time relaxation.
8. On 26.12.1996 the Society applied for
regularization duly received by DDA & RCS on
31.12.1996 Respondents paid the charges vide
challan issued by DDA.
9. On 18.02.2000 in CWP 2402 of 1998 the High
Court gave Voting Rights to them in presence of
the Counsel for the RCS. This constitutes estoppel
and it cannot be contended that the newly enrolled
members have not been lawfully enrolled.
10. Elections were held in 2001 and 2006 from list of
members as approved (including the names of the
newly enrolled members) by the Election Officer
approved by the RCS. This constitutes estoppel
and it cannot be contended that the newly enrolled
members have not been lawfully enrolled.

7. I requested the counsel for the society and the newly
enrolled members to provide to me clarifications as to:
1. Whether the society sent any demand letters for
payment of cost of land and cost of construction to
members prior to 1988?
2. Whether the Society sent any demand letters for
newly enrolled members? And when did they
pay?
3. Their stand on the minutes of 2.3.1988?
4. The effect of non-availability of the original
minutes of 2.3.1988?
5. The effect of the Audit Reports 1987-88 and 1988-
89 of the Society not referring to enrollment of
new members?
6. Non disclosure of the factum of enrollment on
2.3.1988 to the Lt. Governor.
7. Effect of non compliance with Rule 65(5) and the
minutes of 2.3.1988 not being signed by all
members present?
8. Why if members were enrolled on 2.3.1988 were
the names not put up with the draw on 10.8.1988?
9. Their stand with respect to the application C.M.
No.309 of 2001 and the affidavit of Mr. Anand
Jain in support thereof?
8. The response of the newly enrolled members is as under:
members prior to 1988?
These records are with the society and
Society has been requested to produce them.
It may be noted that the Society has not
produced these.
newly enrolled members? And when did they
pay?
They have produced 23 letters one
demand letter dated 5.3.1988 to a Manju
Singla all other demands are between
3.5.1990 and 2.12.1990 and thereafter two

individual demand letters of 16.6.1991 and
19.6.1991. All these letters purport to be
signed by Anand jain, President. No
specific demand is mentioned in these letters
other than in the letter dated 16.6.1991 to
Akshay Dogra. It may be noted that the
Society has not produced any demand letters
to the other members.
3. Their stand on the minutes of 2.3.1988?
The photocopy of the minutes is
disputed and in any case it is for the Society
to explain. The Society has disassociated
themselves from the minutes of 2.3.1988
alleging them to be fabricated.
4. The effect of non-availability of the original
minutes of 2.3.1988?
The order dated 16.12.1991 records
the statement of Anand Jain where he was
asked the question repeatedly but declined to
answer.
5. The effect of the Audit Reports 1987-88 and 1988-
89 of the Society not referring to enrollment of
new members?
The Audit Report mentions the
minutes of meeting dated 2.3.1988 but
further explanation can only be given by the
Society.
6. Non disclosure of the factum of enrollment on
2.3.1988 to the Lt. Governor?
Society has to explain but Status quo
was granted after the minutes of 2.3.1988
and before 1.6.1988. Society has offered no
explanation.
7. Effect of non compliance with Rule 65(5) and the
minutes of 2.3.1988 not being signed by all
members present?
The photocopy of the minutes is
disputed. And in any case it is for the
Society to explain.
8. Why if members were enrolled on 2.3.1988 were
the names not put up with the draw on 10.8.1988?

By reason of the status quo order
passed by the Lt. Governor. No explanation
has been given by the Society.
9. Their stand with respect to the application C.M.
No.309 of 2001 and the affidavit of Mr. Anand
Jain in support thereof?
They filed a copy of the Affidavit of
Anand Jain purported to have been affirmed
on 30.7.2007. The affidavit of Anand Jain
alleges the application CM No.309 of 2001
to have been filed without his authorization.
He did not instruct the Advocate Shri Ashok
Kumar to file that application. He alleges
his signatures to be forged on the application
and affidavit in support thereof.
9. The stand of the Society in respect of the aforesaid
queries is as under:
1. The minutes of 2.3.1988 are not on the record of
the Society. The photocopy is alleged to be
fabricated.
2. Anand Jain, President had reported loss of the
records of the Society to the police and recorded
an FIR on 19.11.1991. This seems to be an
afterthought for it is contrary to the statement of
Anand Jain as recorded by the Hon’ble Court on
16.12.1991. The fact of FIR for loss of record is
also not pleaded by Anand Jain in his counter
affidavit dated 3.7.1992 (page 276 to 292). Mr.
anand Jain also does not refer to the said FIR in his
affidavit of 3.7.2007.
3. No intimation of any demand letters sent prior to
end 1988 have been provided by the Society.
Payments have been received from all newly
enrolled members by 1990-91 and nothing
remained to be paid thereafter by them. However,
in 2001 it was observed that the record of entire
cash payment made by President Banwari Lal
Sharma was not available accordingly it was
resolved to accept cheque payment of Rs.1,68,501
(being the total price of the Flat) from him. The
Audit Report of the year 2000-01 also shows Mr.

Rakesh Agarwal Membership No.85 has paid
Rs.6,39,404/-. No explanation is forthcoming of
this huge one time payment by the said member in
2000-01.
4. As regards CM No.309 of 2001 a copy of the
Affidavit of Anand Jain purported to have been
affirmed on 30.7.2007 has been placed before me.
The affidavit of Anand Jain alleges the application
CM No.309 of 2001 to have been filed without his
authorization. He did not instruct the Advocate
Shri Ashok Kumar to file that application. He
alleges his signatures to be forged on the
application and affidavit in support thereof.
This purported Affidavit of Mr. Anand Jain
seems to be incorrect. CM No.309 of 2001 was
not filed by Mr. Ashok Kumar Advocate as now
alleged. It was filed by Mr. N.P.Singh Advocate
Chamber 134, Bawa Gurcharan Singh Block, Tis
Hazari, Delhi. In this context it may be further
noted that the same advocate has also filed C.M.
No.10150 of 2000 on behalf of Anand Jain (see

pages 920-925) enclosing the medical certificate of
Anand Jain as well. Signatures of Anand Jain on
the admitted record do appear to be similar as well.
The original affidavit dated 30.7.2007 of Anand
Jain has not been placed before me. Perhaps it has
been filed on the record of the Hon’ble Court. The
assertions made in the said affidavit dated
30.7.2007 of Anand Jain appear to be false and self
serving.
5. The Society sent notices by UPC to defaulting
members. Photocopies of notices purportedly sent
are dated 1.3.2001, 18.3.2001. It may be seen that
these notices are to the members whose
membership was restored and were sent when
there are interim orders passed by this Hon’ble
Court.
10. The Status report of the RCS, filed through Kamal Deep
Advocate, states, inter-alia, as under:-
1. That the induction of 27 members on 2.3.1988 was
without approval of the RCS and is illegal, not in

conformity with the provisions of the DCS Act and
the Rules thereunder.
2. That out of the 10 members who were ordered to
be reinstated, and which orders became final, 5
members have been granted Floats vide orders of
the High Court dated 12.8.2005;
3. The membership of 16 others were restored by
orders of the Courts below and the Society is has
filed its Writ Petition against the orders of the
Financial Commissioner.
4. That Rajesh Banga in occupation of the Flat
No.601, is not a member of the Society. Flat 601
per the RCS record belongs to D.C. Maheshwari.
11. The newly enrolled members seek to claim rights by
reason of having formed a Residents Welfare Association
in 1995 and several of the 22 members are holding posts
in the RWA. They claim that on 02.02.1996 the DDA
took out office notice for regularisation of draw of lots as
one time scheme to societies to regularize their allotment
of Flats which were allotted by the societies. On
13.03.1996 the Registrar Societies took out circular

regarding one time relaxation; on 26.12.1996 the Society
applied for regularization which was duly received by
DDA & RCS on 31.12.1996 and they paid the charges
vide challan issued by DDA; On 18.02.2000 in CWP
2402 of 1998 the High Court gave Voting Rights to them
in presence of the Counsel for the RCS. This constitutes
estoppel and it cannot be contended that the newly
enrolled members have not been lawfully enrolled;
Elections were held in 2001 and 2006 from list of
members as approved (including the names of the newly
enrolled members) by the Election Officer approved by
the RCS. This constitutes estoppel and it cannot be
contended that the newly enrolled members have not
been lawfully enrolled.
It is true that these members have been in
occupation of these Flats for the last about 16-17 years.
But these members were also aware that their possession
is seriously under challenge in the present CWP filed in
1991. They were aware of the pendency of these
proceedings when an inspection was made in June 1992.
In the CWP the relief claimed, inter-alia, sought quashing

of the illegal allotments. These members have been
seeking to justify their possession in this hotly contested
matter. Accordingly, it can not be said that they have any
special equities in their favour by reason of the pendency
of the present proceedings. The action of the newly
enrolled members in making a Residents Welfare
Association; seeking Regularisation and payments made
by them in pursuance to the said scheme were without
leave of the Hon’ble Court, they would be deemed to be
paid without prejudice to the decision of the matter in
accordance with the doctrine of lis pendens. The filing of
the CWP 2401 of 1998 by them was without impleading
the members whose membership were restored. [I
however concede that the paper books of these
proceedings have not been provided to me. The final
result of the CWP 2401 of 1998 has also not been
brought to my notice.] The persons whose memberships
had been directed to be restored by orders of the Hon’ble
Court were necessary or at least proper parties. They too
had voting rights. They were not considered. The
elections of 2001 and 2006 were without participation of

these members whose memberships were restored.
These actions cannot be said to be binding on the persons
whose memberships were restored and claiming to be
entitled to possession of Flats. Conversely the newly
added members cannot claim rights on the basis of the
orders as passed without hearing the members who were
directed to be reinstated. In this context it may be noted
that the newly added members are parties to the CWP
3891 of 1991 which also prays for publication of
electoral roll and holding of elections, there was no
reason why the Respondents did not join with the
petitioners to have the said relief granted. Instead the
newly enrolled members – the Respondents in the
pending petition sought institution of a fresh CWP 2401
of 1998 for the same/similar relief. The obvious reason
seems to be to not have the contesting parties heard.
These actions and orders accordingly ought not to be read
as to having created any special rights/equities in favour
of the newly enrolled members.

12. The Society cannot resist the claims of the 10 expelled
members who were reinstated vide orders of the RSC
dated 27.9.1989 upon the Revision of the Society being
dismissed by the Lt. Governor on 25.6.1991. These 10
are entitled to Flats in the Society. Fortunately for the
Society only three members Rattan Lal Jhawar; Shanta
Ajmera & N.P.Mantri of these ten are pressing their
claim for allotment of a Flat.
Re: Rattan Lal Jhawar (Membership No.33B);
Shanta Ajmera (Membership No.69A) & N.P. Mantri
(Membership No.70A). The memberships of these three
members were ceased by the RCS on 24.2.1988. Their
Revision Petitions were accepted by the Lt. Governor
who vide order dated 9.12.1988 set aside the same and
remanded the matter back to the RCS. The Society
sought review of the said order of the Lt. Governor,
which was dismissed on 18.1.1989. On 27.9.1989 the
RCS passed an order after enquiry and restored the
membership of 10 members. Rattan Lal Jhawar; Shanta
Ajmera & N.P. Mantri are amongst these members. The
Society has not impugned this decision before the High

Court and accordingly their restoration has become final.
Shanta Ajmera and N.P. Mantri have paid Rs.85,000/-
each and Rattan Lal Rs.27,000/- per affidavit of Banwari
Lal Sharma, President (see page 937). No other un-
complied demand letters have been filed by the Society
to allege that these members were defaulters.
By the order dated 12.8.2005, this Hon’ble Court
prima-facie came to conclusion that these three persons
had approached the Court late and amended memo of
parties was filed only on 28.8.2001 ten years after the
institution of the original petition. The Court accordingly
did not, at that stage, desire to pass any order in their
favour for reason of delay and latches. These persons
have filed C.M. No.13354 of 2005 dated 15.10.2005 for
recall of the order of 12.8.2005 qua them. Notice has
been issued on that application on 9.1.2006. These
petitioners have submitted that the petition as originally
filed was in representative capacity seeking relief for all
similarly situated persons and the fact that they chose to
get themselves specifically impleaded later ought not to
be held against them. Society ought to have given effect

to the decisions of 1991 in favour of the members and
ought not to compel the members into litigation. They
also submit that the findings on fact qua their
membership have attained finality. The Society ought
not to discriminate now at this stage after they have
succeeded in the Courts below.
It may also be seen that the claims of these three
members are not barred by limitation. They have
declaratory and executable orders in their favour. Relief,
inter-alia, claimed in the CWP 3871 of 1991 is to issue
appropriate writ to quash the illegal allotment of Flats
made by the then managing committee. While it is true
that persons in possession have been in occupation of the
Flats for about 16-17 years, their right to remain in
possession has been consistently in question, they were
aware of the challenge to their possession ever since the
Inspection of June 1992. The Society has been
mismanaged. Even the Administrator did not/could not
put the house in order.

13. As regards the issue of 16 members whose membership
is in question in CWP No.2890 of 1995. The Society had
originally filed the Writ Petition only against Mehar
Chand Jain. Subsequently in 2000 the Society had filed
an impleadment application to implead 15 others and
amended memo of parties was filed on 18.12.2000.
However, no amendment in the Petition was made to
incorporate any facts in relation to the newly added
parties.
Of the 16 members whose membership is under
question, only 5 members are contesting the petitions as
of today, namely:
(1) L.R’s of Santosh Jain (Membership No.35B)
(2) LR’s Savitri Devi Jain (Membership No.9B)
(3) Mehar Chand Jain (Membership No.73A)
(4) R.P.Shorewala (Membership No.8B)
(5) R.D. Gupta (Membership No.62A)
Two issues have been raised by the Society in the
Writ Petition to impugn the decision of the Financial
Commissioner 20.9.1994 (i) that the delegation of the
powers to the Financial Commissioner by the Lt.

Governor for deciding the Revision Petitions is contrary
to Law. This issue is no longer res-integra, in that, this
Hon’ble court has vide judgment and order dated
30.4.1997 in R.K. Varshney versus Financial
Commissioner reported as 68(1997) DLT 200(DB) while
dealing with the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act 1972
has upheld the said delegation.
The second issue is on facts as to whether or not
the members were rightly expelled. In this connection,
on facts the following position emerges:
(1) & (2) Re. Santosh Jain (Membership No.35B)
& Savitri Devi Jain (Membership No.9B); In the order of
the RCS dated 15.6.1994 at page 3 para 2 the statement
of counsel for the Society has been recorded as, “…
During arguments, counsel for the Society conceded that
sufficient evidence has been adduced by the petitioners in
support of their residence in Delhi at the time of
allotment.” Accordingly the RCS did not approve the
cessation of the membership of these two members.
In this view of the matter the carrying of a
Revision Petition against the consent order dated

15.6.1994 to the Financial Commissioner was not
justified. The Society seeking impleadment of these two
members in CWP No.2890 of 1995 which impugns the
order dated 20.9.1994 of the Financial commissioner is
also not justified, as the membership was restored on
concession of the Society itself. It is accordingly not
open to the Society to now seek to question the facts and
request this Hon’ble Court to exercise its discretionary
writ jurisdiction on the facts as they have emerged.
These two persons have died during the pendency
of these proceedings and their applications for bringing
on record of the Legal Representatives are on record.
Both these persons Santosh Jain and Savitri Devi
Jain are accordingly recommended as being entitled to
get a Flat of their category, Santosh Jain in MIG/B
category, and Savitri Devi Jain in HIG/A category.
(3)&(4) Re: Mehar Chand Jain (Membership
No.73A) & R.P.Shorewala (Membership No.8B) On
facts the case of the Society is based solely on the fact
that letters purported to have been sent to them were
received back (per order of RCS dated 27.9.89). On

remand per order of RCS dated 15.6.1994 Society
claimed to have filed documents during the proceedings
that culminated in the earlier order. This was refuted by
the counsel for the Petitioner. That file was not
traceable. It was claimed that the CBI had seized the file.
However the Seizure Memo makes no reference to the
said file. Accordingly the case was decided on the basis
of the available records. The Order of 15.6.1994 records,
“…The Society has not filed any documentary evidence
during the proceedings to prove that the Petitioners were
not residents of Delhi.” In the absence of any material
there seems to be no infirmity with the conclusions in the
said order holding the cessation of membership to be bad
in law.
Accordingly, Mehar Chand Jain (Membership
No.73A) & R.P.Shorewala (Membership No.8B) are
recommended as being entitled to a Flat each from the
Society of HIG/A Category and MIG/B category
respectively.
(5) Re; R.D.Gupta (Membership No.62A) he is
an employee of the Oriental Bank of Commerce a

Nationalized Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi. He
was residing at Paschim Vihar even per the memo of
parties filed by the Society. Per Bye law 5 of the
Society:
“Any person shall be eligible to be a member of
the Society provided:-
(a) He is domiciled in Delhi/New Delhi/Delhi
Cantonment. Further provided that this condition
shall not apply to a Central Government Servant
(including officers of All India Services, Service
personnel/Employees of Public Undertakings)…”.
R.D. Gupta produced letter of his employer dated
30.4.1988; a Certificate of the Chief Manager Personnel
that he was posted at Delhi, the Rent Receipt and
certificates of the landlord; the marks sheet of his son
dated 3.6.1980 and the CBSE Certificate of his son to
establish his residence in Delhi. These documents were
not disputed by the society. The Society further alleged
that R.D. Gupta was a /benami’ of one N.C. Goel. The
order of the RCS dated 15.6.1994 records a finding of
fact that this case of ‘benami’ is not made out (see para 2
on page 5 of the said order). There is no factual error in
this behalf and his membership was not liable to be
ceased.
R.D.Gupta is accordingly recommended as being
entitled to a Flat from the Society of HIG/A Category.
14. In Re: D.C.Maheshwari: He was admittedly a member of
the Society. His membership was not ceased. His name
was included in the list of members eligible for draw of
lots. In the draw of lots he was allotted Flat No.601. He
was not given possession of this Flat. He along with
others filed the captioned CWP No.3871 of 1991.
At the time of inspection of the local commissioner
in 1992, this Flat was found to be in the possession of
one Sushil Kumar Chaddha.
Sushil Kumar Chaddha has filed a 2 page counter
affidavit in October 1997 (see page 781-783) raising
preliminary issues relating to the jurisdiction of the Court
to decide disputed questions of fact and that the forum is
under section 60 of the DCS Act. He claims to be a duly
admitted member having paid the entire sale
consideration and that he was allotted Flat No.601A by

the society in 1991 and that he is in possession thereof.
He does not disclose that he sold this Flat to Rajesh
Banga in his Counter Affidavit.
Now one Rajesh Banga claims to have purchased
the said Flat from Sushil Kumar Chaddha. Mr. Rajesh
Banga claims that Sushil Kumar Chaddha was admitted
to the membership of the Society vide minutes of
2.3.1988 (copy of which he obtained from the RCS under
the right to Information Act) and that he was put in
possession on 12.3.1988 on payment of Rs.1,75,000/-
(however, receipt No.1419 dated 12.3.1988 for
Rs.75,000/- only) is filed. Rajesh Banga claims to have
purchased this Flat No.601A from Sushil Kumar
Chaddha on 15.7.1991 by paying a consideration of
Rs.2,25,000/- (only an Affidavit of Sushil Kumar
Chaddha dated 17.8.2005 is filed in support of the claim
for purchase on 15.7.1991). Rajesh Banga has filed a
large number of documents to assert that he was in
possession of the said Flat 601A. A closer look of the
date of these documents would show that the on
31.12.1994 Sushil Chaddha had filed the Self Assessment

form with the MCD for purpose of Property Taxm. The
first receipt on the name of Rajesh Banga even by the
Societies Welfare Association is of 27.2.1997; Driving
licence of the wife of Rajesh Banga was issued licence
on 25.1.2000 from this address; the passport was issued
in 2003 from this address.
According to the status report of the RCS, filed by
Kamal Deep, Advocate, per para 12 thereof, Flat No.601
was allotted to D.C. Maheshwari, Rajesh Banga who is in
occupation thereof is not a member of the Society.
Evidently the versions of Sushil Kumar Chaddha and
Rajesh Banga are at variance. Sushil Kumar Chaddha in
his 2 page Counter Affidavit of October 1997 (see page
782) asserts that he was put in possession in 1991 after he
paid the entire amount towards cost of construction.
Sushil Kumar Chaddha does not disclose that he had sold
this Flat to Rajesh Banga. Rajesh Banga asserts that
Sushil Kumar Chaddha paid the Society on 12.3.1988
Rs.1,75,000/- and was put in possession of the said Flat
on 12.3.1988. Rajesh Banga ssserts that he purchased
this Flat from Sushil Chaddha on 15.7.1991 on the

strength of the Affidavit of Sushil chaddha dated
17.8.205.
In this context it may be noted that on 12.8.2005
this Hon’ble Court had directed dispossession from Flat
601A. On the motion of Rajesh Banga on 18.8.2005 that
order was modified qua this flat ex-parte by reason of
medical illness of his wife.
The case of D.C. Maheshwari seems to be
indistinguishable from the case of Smt. Sudarshan
Kumari who was granted similar relief by orders dated
20.7.2001 in respect of flat 602. It is accordingly
recommended that orders dated 12.8.2005 (corrected on
9.1.2006) insofar as they relate to D.C. Maheshwari
ought to be implemented. D.C. Maheshwari is
recommended as being entitled to Flat 601A as already
directed by the Hon’ble court.
15. As regards costing of the Flats, in the absence of call
letters, I can only go by the sworn affidavits of the Office
bearers of the society and the available contemporaneous
records.
Evidence no call letters prior to 2001 have been
placed on record. Default of payment can arise by reason
of non-compliance with call letters. No such defaults
have been show to have been committed by the persons
claiming possession. The Society claims that payments
have been received from all newly enrolled members by
1990-1991 and nothing remained to be paid thereafter by
them. However, in 2001 it was observed that the record
of entire cash payment made by President Banwari Lal
Sharma was not available accordingly it was resolved to
accept cheque payment of Rs.1,68,501 (being the total
price of the Flat) from him. The Audit Report of the year
2000-01 shows that the President Banwari Lal Sharma
made cheque payment of Rs.1,68,501 it also shows Mr.
Rakesh Aggarwal Membership No.85 has paid
Rs.6,39,404/-. No explanation is forthcoming of this
huge one time payment by the said member in 2000-01.
In the affidavit of President Banwari Lal Sharma
filed on 11.5.2001 (page 931) in para 6 the pricing of the
Flats is as under:
LIG Flat Rs.1.28 Lacs

MIG Flat Rs.1.685 Lacs
HIG Flat Rs.2.48 Lacs
On 20.7.2001 Flat No.602 was directed to be given
to Smt. Sudarshan Kumari who was an original allottee
of this Flat in the draw of lots of 10.8.1988. On
27.8.2001 demand letter was given by the society to her
for a demand of Rs.1,26,650/- plus interest of
Rs.2,25,771/- i.e. a total of Rs.3,52,421/-.
Now in 2005 the Society is demanding
Rs.8,00,000/- plus Rs.1,20,000/-. This seems to be
incongruous.
16. The position that emerges today is that in the draw of lots
that was held on 10.8.1988, 69 Flats were allotted to
members. Only D.C.Maheshwari who was allotted Flat
601A does not have possession of the Flat allotted to
him. This Flat is in occupation of Rajesh Banga.
30 Flats in two categories were not allotted in the
draw of lots of 10.8.1988, these are:
Flat Nos.5, 6, 7, 12, 16, 18, 20, 25, 27, 34, 40, 42, 46, in
MIG/B Cagtegory.
Flat Nos.004, 005, 006, 105, 203, 204, 301, 303, 305,
404, 406, 502, 503, 505, 703, 704, 705 in HIG/A
Category.
These 30 Flats are presently occupied. The 22
members (enrolled under minutes of 2.3.1988),
represented through Mrs. Mala Goel Advocate claim in
para 8 of their submissions that the Society allotted semi
finished Floats to them and gave possession in 1990. It is
claimed that vide letter dated 10.4.1990 Society informed
DDA with copy to the RCS that in view of the urgency
expressed by members a draw of lots of 22 Flats was held
on 10.4.1990. They claim to be in possession since then.
If a draw of lots was held on 10.4.1990 that draw
was in defiance/disobedience to the orders of the Courts
in force and the procedure as established in this behalf,
and can accordingly confer no rights.
The position as to occupation of these flats is
contained (i) in the Report of the Local Commissioner
dated 26.6.1992 (see Volume B page 223), and (ii) in the
Report of the President of the Society.

A ready comparison of these Two Reports is at
page 123-127 of paper book volume 1 & II (special paper
book).
17. If the 27 members whose membership was ceased on
24.2.1988 and 26 whose membership was directed to be
restored in pursuance to orders of the Courts are to be
given possession of the Flats, some fro the persons who
were enrolled on 2.3.1988 and in possession of Flats,
would be required to vacate and deliver possession, and
seek refund from the Society of monies paid by them
with interest.
Issue would arise as to who should vacate? Could
it by draw of lots? Alternatively, those in possession
would jointly need to pay those claiming possession
individually as per costs today as a matter of mutual
settlement.
Fortunately all 26 of these members are not before
me.
Vide orders dated 20.7.2001 Flat No.602 was
directed to be given to Smt. Sudarshan Kumari who was
an original allottee of this Flat in the draw of lots of

10.8.1988. This Flat was purported to be in possession of
one J.P.Agarwal. At the time of inspection in 1992 it
was an unfinished Flat with no door with a name printed
of Mr. K.Kumar.
Vide orders dated 12.8.2005 (corrected on
9.1.2006) the Hon’ble Court has issued directions that
from unallotted Flats the following be given Flats:-
(a) D.C.Maheshwari an original allottee of Flat
601A in the draw of lots of 10.8.1988,
though in the occupation of Rajesh Banga, at
the time of inspection it was alleged to be in
possession of Sushil Kumar Chaddha.
(b) Legal representatives of Petitioner No.2 –
Flat No.502.
(c) R.K.Kothari – Flat No.704.
(d) Richipal Jain – Flat No.703.
(e) Pavan Kumar Agarwal – Flat No.303.
Flat No.502 was unfinished with no door and was
unoccupied though name painted on the entrance was of
C.L. Aggarwal at the time of inspection. Per the Report
of the President the same was vacant.

Nipun at the time of inspection. Per the Report of the
President the same was vacant.
V.Kumar at the time of inspection. Per the Report of the
President the same was vacant.
unoccupied no name was painted on the entrance at the
time of inspection. Per the Report of the President the
same was vacant.
Accordingly the following Flats (from the
originally unallotted Flats in the HIG/A type Category)
remain for consideration/allotment i.e. Flat Nos.004, 005,
006, 105, 203, 204, 301, 305, 404, 406, 503, 505, 705 in
HIG/A Category. The claimants in the HIG/A Category
Flats are:
(a) R.D.Gupta.
(b) Mehar Chand Jain.
(c) Shanta Ajmera and

(d) N.P.Mantri
Flats Nos.5, 6, 7, 12, 16, 18, 20, 25, 27, 34, 40, 42,
46, in MIG/B Category were not allotted in the original
draw of lots of 10.8.1988. The claimants in the MIG/B
Category flats are:
(a) R.P.Shorewala,
(b) LR’s of Santosh Jain
(c) LR’s of Savitri Devi Jain
(d) Ratan Lal Jhawar
Richipal Jain has been allotted Flat No.703 vide orders
dated 12.8.2005. In all 9 members, before me, are
without possession of their Flats:
1. D.C.Maheshwari an original allottee of Flat
No.601A in the draw of lots of 10.8.1988, though
in the occupation of Rajesh Banga, at the time of
inspection it was alleged to be in possession of
Sushil Kumar Chaddha.
2. R.D.Gupta – HIG/A Type
3. Mehar Chand Jain – HIG/ A Type
4. Shanta Ajmera – HIG/A Type

5. N.P.Mantri – HIG/A Type
6. R.P.Shorewala – MIG/B Type
7. LR’s of Santosh Jain – MIG/B type
8. LR’s of Savitri Devi Jain – MIG/B Type
9. Rattan Lal Jhawar – MIG/B Type
On parity of reasoning on the basis of the orders
dated 20.7.2001 and 12.8.2005 (corrected on 9.1.2006),
these 9 members cannot be denied possession of Flats,
subject to paragraph 17 supra, payment of balance
monies, if any, and they filing appropriate affidavits that
they have not incurred any disqualification and are
entitled to have Flat in accordance with the Law as
applicable. It is recommended accordingly.
The written submissions as made before me and
written responses to the queries raised are being
appended for being placed on the record of the Hon’ble
Court. I am not retaining copies of this record.
Submitted for consideration.
Sd/-
(ARVIND K.NIGAM)
Advocate
COURT COMMISSIONER
New Delhi
13.8.2007
HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI.
Writ Petition (Civil) No.2890 of 1995
Judgment reserved on: April 8,2009
Judgment delivered on: April 17, 2009
Maitri Nagar Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.

Through its President
22, Maitri Apartments
Plot No.29, Sector IX
Rohini, Delhi.
..Petitioner
Through Mr. R.P.Bansal, Sr. Advocate,
with Mr. Rakesh Mahajan and Mr.
Pramod Tyagi, Advs.
Versus
1. Shri Mehar Chand Jain,

Resident of BP-168
Shalimar Bagh, West Delhi-110052.
2. Registrar
Cooperative Societies,
3. Financial Commissioner,
National Capital Territory of Delhi
5, Alipur Road, New Delhi.
4. Shri Zile Singh

R/O 3/20, New Birla Lane,
Kamla Nagar, Delhi.
5. Nirmal Kumar Jain,

R/O 313/62-E, Anand Nagar,
Delhi.
6. Shri Suresh Chand Goel,

RO A-10, Wazir Pur Indl. Area,
Delhi.
7. Shri Jai Chand,
R/O A-10, Wazir Pur Indl. Area,
Delhi.
8. Shri Vinod Kumar,

R/O 161, State Bank Colony,
Delhi.
9. Shri Ram Prakash Sorewala,

R/O 3228, Gali Pipal,
Chowk Mukhi Mandir,
Hauz Quazi, Delhi.
10. Smt. S.D. Aggarwal,

S/O Shri R.C.Aggarwal,
R/O AG 21, Shalimar Bagh,
New Delhi.
11. Smt. Raj Kumari,

R/O 140, State Bank Colony,
Delhi.
12. Smt. Krishna Devi,

R/O A-79/22, WEazirpur Indl. Area,
Delhi.
13. Smt. Saroj Jain,

S/O N.K.Jain,
R/O AG 20, Shalimar Bagh,
New Delhi.
14. Smt. Savitri Devi Jain,

W/O Late Shri Ajit Prasad Jain,
R/O AM 197 Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi. Deceased through
a) Shri S.C. Jain.
b) Shri A.P. Jain.
c) Shri Virender Kumar Jain.
d) Shri Rami Jain.
e) Shri Upender Jain.
(sons of Sh. Ajit Parsad Jain and Smt. Savitri Devi,

The deceased).
f) Ms. Krishana Jain.
g) Ms. Trishla Jain.
h) Ms. Manju Jain.
(daughters of Sh. Ajit Parsad Jain and Smt. Savitri

Devi, the deceased).
R/O AM 197, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
15. Smt. Santosh Jain,

R/O 36, Model Basti,
New Delhi.
Deceased through her L.R.
(a) Shri Sanjeev Jain,

R/O 11/17, Old Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi-110060.
16. S.D.Jain,
2481, Naiwala, Karol Bagh,
Delhi.
17. Shri R.D.Gupta

R/O A-6/259, Paschim vihar,
New Delhi.
Also at:
2, Model town,
Bahadur Garh (Jhajjar).
18. Kusum Jain,

R/O D-9, Ashok Vihar,
Phase-I, Delhi. ..Respondents
Through:Mr. S.S. jain, Adv. For R-1, 15 & 16.

Mr. Amit Andlay, Adv. For RCS.
Mr. R.K.Gupta, Adv. For R-9 & R-17.
Mr. Anil Aggarwal, Adv. For L.Rs. of
R-4.
Mr. Jinendra Jain with Mr. Ravi
Shankar Garg, Advs. For R-5 to R-8,
R-10 to R-14 and R-18.
Coram:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may Yes

be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes

in the Digest?
MADAN B.LOKUR, J.
C.M. 7531/2007
There is no opposition to this application. Accordingly, it is
allowed and the legal representative of Smt. Santosh Jain
(Respondent No.15), that is Mr. Sanjeev Jain is brought on record as
Respondent No.15(a).
The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.2890/1995
1. More than 20 years ago (on 24th February, 1988) the Registrar
of Cooperative societies (for short RCS) passed an order to the effect
that Respondent Nos.1 and 4 to 18 (amongst others) had incurred a
disqualification for membership of the petitioner society under Rule
25 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 and the Bye-laws
of the petitioner society.

2. It appears that on a complaint (not made by the petitioner
society), the RCS took suo motu action and disqualified these
Respondents (and others) from membership of the petitioner society,
on the ground that they were not residents of Delhi at the relevant
time.
3. Feeling aggrieved, these Respondents (and others) preferred a
revision petition before the Lieutenant governor who held, by an
order on 9th December, 1988 that the decision rendered by the RCS
was without giving them a hearing. Accordingly, he allowed the
revision petition and remanded the dispute for reconsideration by the
RCS. A review petition filed by the petitioner society was rejected
on 18th January, 1989.
4. On remand, the RCS passed an order dated 27 th September,
1989 holding that the respondents before us could not produce any
documentary material to show that they were residents of Delhi. As
regards the others, the RCS concluded that their membership from
the petitioner society had been incorrectly ceased.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents preferred a revision
petition before the Lieutenant governor and contended that all the
necessary documents were produced before the RCS but he had not
taken them into consideration. Photocopies of the relevant

documents were submitted before the Lieutenant Governor. The
departmental representative did not produce the relevant file of the
RCS on which reliance was placed on the ground that it had been
seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). He submitted
that the RCS would look into the claim of the respondents afresh in
the light of the documents now produced.
6. In view of this, by similar orders dated 7 th and 22nd April,
1993 the Lieutenant governor again remanded the case to the RCS to
examine the claim of the Respondents in terms of the documents that
they may like to produce.
7. On remand, the RCS gave an opportunity to the petitioner
society to show that the respondents were not residents of Delhi at
the relevant time, but it was unable to do so. On the other hand, the
Respondents individually produced documents to show that they
were residents of Delhi at the relevant time. Since there are a large
number of respondents in this case, we are not indicating the
documents filed by each of them. Suffice it to say, that each one of
the respondents produced more than one document in support of his
or her case. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the relevant
file of the RCS/Petitioner society allegedly seized by the CBI was
not produced before any of the statutory authorities. In fact, it
appears that the file was not seized by the CBI because the seizure
memo of the CBI does not indicate that this particular file was seized
or was otherwise with the CBI. There is, therefore, no reason why
the relevant file relied on by the RCS/Petitioner society was not
made available during the adjudicatory process.
8. What is also of importance is that on 16th December, 1992 the
RCS issued a circular dispensing with the requirement of proof of
residence in Delhi for members of cooperative group housing
societies. A copy of this circular was given to the federation of
group housing societies for being passed on to the member societies.
Further, to give effect to this circular, a direction was issued
requiring deletion of clause 5(1) (a) of the Bye-laws of the
cooperative group housing societies to the effect that a person ought
to be a resident of Delhi for enrolment as a member of a group
housing society.
9. The circular dated 16th December, 1992 is not on our record
in this case but it is filed in the connected writ petition being WP(C)
No.5398 of 1997. The circular reads as follows:
IFFUCE IF TGE REGUSTRAR: COOPERATIVE
SOCIETIES: DELHI ADMN. OLD COURTS BUILDING:
PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110001.
No.F.47/OGH/Coop/92/5849 of 5900 Dated: 16.12.1992

CIRCULAR
It has been decided by the Govt. of National Capital
Territory of Delhi to discontinue the requirement of proof of
residence for membership of cooperative group housing
societies with immediate effect. The cases which have been
detained only on account of this reason may be examined in
the light of these orders. In future the requirement of proof of
residence in Delhi for clearance of membership of
cooperative group housing societies will not be insisted upon.
A separate action is being taken to advice all the
cooperative group housing societies to amend the relevant
bye-laws accordingly.
(S.M.S.CHAUDHARY)
Registrar, Coop. Societies
10. It was submitted by the petitioner society before the RCS that
the circular did not have retrospective effect. This submission was
rejected by the RCS holding that the circular has to be given effect to
since the cases are still pending final adjudication. Accordingly,
taking all necessary facts into consideration, by an order dated 15 th
June, 1994 the RCS held that the cessation of membership of the
respondents was not in order. He, therefore, did not approve the
cessation of their membership and concluded that they were still
members of the petitioner society.
11. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner society preferred a revision
petition before the Financial Commissioner. By the impugned order
dated 20th September, 1994 the revision petition was dismissed.
12. Before us, it was vaguely submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioner society that the respondents were not residents of
Delhi at the relevant time. In our view, it is not open for the
petitioner society to raise such a contention. There are several
reasons for it: Firstly, the complaint about the respondents not being
residents of Delhi was not made by the petitioner society. It seems
that complaints had been made by other members that some
members of the petitioner society were not residents of Delhi and
had submitted false affidavits in this regard. Consequently, an
inquiry officer was appointed to conduct an inquiry under the
provisions of Rule 55 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules,
1973. The inquiry officer submitted an ex-parte report and it is on
the basis of this ex-parte report that the membership of the
Respondents was ceased. This has been noted by the Lieutenant
Governor in his order dated 9th December, 1988. Secondly, despite
an opportunity having been given, neither the petitioner society nor
the departmental representative could adduce any evidence to show

that the respondents were not residents of Delhi at the relevant time.
Thirdly, the file that they were relying on is missing and has not
been produced before any statutory authority till date. An adverse
inference is required to be drawn against the RCS/petitioner society
for non-production of the relevant file. On the basis of an
unsubstantiated allegation mentioned in an ex-parte report, the
membership of the respondents could not have been ceased by the
RCS. Fourthly, the respondents produced documentary evidence in
support of their claim that they were residents of Delhi and that
evidence was not controverted by the petitioner society. Clearly,
therefore, on facts it must be held that in the absence of anything to
the contrary, the respondents were residents of Delhi at the relevant
time.
13. We have gone into this factual aspect for the reason that it
was vaguely argued by learned counsel for the petitioner society.
Moreover, we find that the dispute is over 28 years old and has been
through three rounds of revision. We feel that a time has come when
the dispute must terminate one way or the other. We also find that
no material adverse to the respondents has been produced before any
of the statutory authorities, while the respondents have produced
material favourable to them. Taking all this into account, we have
looked into the factual aspect of the matter.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner society then submitted that
the circular dated 16th December, 1992 cannot have retrospective
effect. In our opinion, the question of retrospectivity does not arise
in this case. The circular merely states that those cases “detained” to
enable a member of a cooperative group housing society to provide
proof of residence, may now be examined in the light of the Delhi
Government’s decision to discontinue the necessity of proving
residence in Delhi. In other words, the circular would be applicable
only to those cases that had not yet attained finality. There is no
doubt, and indeed there cannot be any doubt in this regard, that the
cases of the respondents had not yet attained finality. In fact, their
cases were pending and were in the process of being adjudicated by
the RCS. That being the position, the RCS was bound to give effect
to the circular dated 16th December, 1992 and proceed on the basis
that it was no longer obligatory for the respondents to adduce proof
of their residence in Delhi. Notwithstanding this, the respondents
did produce supporting evidence and that was not controverted by
the petitioner society. The question of restrospectivity would arise
only if those cases that had attained finality were sought to be re-
opened on the basis of the circular dated 16th December, 1992 but
since that is not the situation before us, the issue of its retrospective
operation does not at all arise for consideration. All that the
statutory authorities have done is to apply the circular as it is to the
cases before them. They have not re-opened any closed case.
15. Under the circumstances, we find no merit in this writ
petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Respondent Nos.1 and 4 to
18 are held to be continuing as members of the petitioner society at
all relevant times and the cessation of their membership is held to be
not sustainable in law.
Sd/-
MADAN B. LOKUR, J.
Sd/-
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
April 17, 2009
Certified that the corrected

Copy of the judgment has
Been transmitted in the main
Server.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
Writ Petition (Civil) No.5398 of 1997
Judgment reserved on: April 8, 2009

Judgment delivered on: April 17, 2009
1. Smt. Santosh Jain (deceased)

Through her L.R.
Shri Sanjeev Jain
R/O 11/17, Old Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi-110060.
2. Smt. Savitri Devi Jain (deceased)

Through Sh. Neeraj Jain,
S/O Sh. A.P.Jain,
R/O AM-197 Ground Floor,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
3. Shri Mehar Chand Jain,

S/O Late Shri Sita Ram Jain,
Resident of BP-168,
Shalimar Bagh, West
Delhi-110052. …Petitioners
Through Mr. S.S.Jain, Advocate
Versus
1. The Registrar Cooperative Societies

Parliament Street,
New Delhi.
2. Maitri Nagar Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.

Plot No.29, Sector-9,
Rohini, New Delhi-110085.
3. Delhi Development Authority

Through its Vice Chairman
Vikas Sadan, Behind INA Market,
New Delhi. …Respondents
Through Mr. Amiet Andlay, Advocate for
Respondent No.1.
Mr. R.P.Bansal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rakesh Mahajan and Mr. Pramod
Tyagi, Advocates for Respondent No.2.
Coram:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B.LOKUR

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may

be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary

In the Digest?
MADAN B. LOKUR, J.
In this writ petition, the relief prayed for by the petitioners is
that the order dated 15th June, 1994 passed by the Registrar of
Cooperative Societies should be implemented by the respondent
society.
2. It may be noted that the aforesaid order has since been upheld
by the Financial Commissioner by an order dated 20 th September,
1994.
3. The order dated 20th September, 1994 passed by the Financial
Commissioner was the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition
(Civil) No.2890/1995 (Maitri Nagar Cooperative Group Housing
Society Ltd. V. Mehar Chand Jain & Others).
4. We heard both the writ petitions [this writ petition as well as
Writ Petition (Civil) No.2890/1995] and it was agreed by learned
counsel appearing for the parties before us that the decision in this
writ petition would be dependent upon the decision in Writ Petition
(Civil) No.2890/1995.
5. We have today dismissed Writ Petition (Civil) No.2890/1995.
We have already held in Writ Petition (Civil) No.2890/1995 that the
cessation of membership of the respondents therein (some of whom
are Petitioners in this writ petition) was contrary to law.
Consequently, it is directed that they should be treated as the
members of the Maitri Nagar Cooperative Group Housing Society
Ltd. at all relevant times.
6. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
MADAN B.LOKUR, J.
Sd/-
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL,J.
April 17, 2009
Certified that the corrected

Copy of the judgment has
Been transmitted in the main
Server.
SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
That the Maitri Nagar Co-operative Group Housing Society
was formed under the provisions of the Delhi Co-operative Societies
Act with a total membership of 99 persons. A peace of land was
allotted vide plot No.29, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi for constructions of
99 Flats. Some dispute had arisen between the members of the
Managing Committee as the then President was doing the affairs of
the Society in arbitrary and illegal manner. The members of the
Society in a group approached the Registrar Co-operative Societies
to conduct the elections which had fallen due. On this the Registrar
Co-operative Societies appointed the Election Officer and directed to
conduct the elections within one month. The Registrar also
appointed the Election Officer to conduct the enquiry under Section
55 in respect of constitution, management the complaints received in
the office of the Registrar. Thereafter, the Assistant Registrar
informed the Society that 27 members were incurring
disqualification in terms of Rule 25 of Delhi Co-operative Societies
Rules, 1973 and the bye-laws of the Society. On coming to know
about the said cessation of membership, the said 27 members
approached the Lt. Governor by preferring appeal under the
provisions of the Act challenging the said order. The Lt. Governor
was pleased to restrain the Society from enrolling new members in

place of the said 27 members. During the pendency of the said
proceedings a draw of lots of allotment of 69 members was
conducted as the membership of 27 members was under dispute and
3 members could not complete the formalities. The Lt. Governor
was pleased to allow the Revision Petitions filed by the said 27
members and remanded the matter of cessation of said 27 members
for reconsideration with proper opportunity to the members and
ordered that status-quo be maintained in respect of said 27 members
untill their dispute is finally adjudicated. The Registrar re-examined
the matter and restored the membership of 10 persons including the
present petitioners. However, maintained the earlier order of
cessation of membership in respect of remaining 17 members. The
Registrar superseded the Managing Committee of the Society and
appointed the Administrator. The remaining 17 members, whose
membership was not restored, again approached the Lt. Governor
and their matter was again remanded to the Registrar in view of the
facts and submissions made by them. The Registrar re-examined the
matter afresh and restored the membership of 16 members out of the
said remaining 17 members. The Society challenged the said
restoration firstly, in respect of the restoration of membership of 10
persons, which includes the petitioners and thereafter in respect of
the remaining 16 members but the said Revision Petition were
dismissed. The Society did not challenge the order passed by the Lt.
Governor in respect of 10 members including the petitioners, thus
the restoration of membership of 10 persons including the petitioners
became final. As the Managing Committee of the Society did not
handed over the records of the Society to the Administrator
appointed by the Registrar of Societies, despite repeated demands
and the President with few persons started dealing with the affairs of
the Society as if they were the builders and the Flats were owned by
them, a group of persons which includes the persons whose
membership was never ceased as well as the persons whose
membership was ceased but restored, filed a writ petition before the
Hon’ble High Court praying the relief in respect of all the bonafide
members of the Society. The Hon’ble High Court repeatedly passed
from time to time the restrain orders against the Managing
Committee of the Society from alienating, transferring or dealing
with the Flats of the Society and directed the Managing Committee
to handover the records of the Society to the Administrator but
neither the records were handed over nor the Ex-President of the
Society desist from illegal and arbitrary activities and keep on
handing over the possession to unauthorized persons for extraneous
considerations. The Hon’ble High Court appointed the Local
Commissioner to inspect the site and to take over the possession of
vacant Flats by putting his lock. The Local Commissioner so
appointed visited the spot and noticed that in addition to the board of
the Society another board by the name of “Anand Apartments” has
been affixed and various persons were found in unauthorized
possession of the Flats and various Flats were unoccupied but since
there were no doors, the Local Commissioner could not put his lock
except on one Flat. A list of unauthorized occupants was filed
before the Hon’ble High Court. On this, amended memo of parties
with amended writ petition was filed arraying the said unauthorized
occupants as respondents. The present petitioners moved an
application Under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. for their
impleadment as petitioners in the said writ petition. The said
application was allowed and the present petitioners joined the
proceedings as petitioners. The matter was fixed for final hearing
and adjourned time to time for one reason or the other. On a date of
hearing, the Society offered 5 Flats to the petitioners, the Hon’ble
High Court by way of interim order directed that said Flats be given
to those petitioners who were petitioners in the original petition on
payment of Rs.7 lacs to the Society subject to finalization of actual
cost. In the said order the Hon’ble High Court declined the present
petitioners on the ground that they joined the proceedings after 10
years and their claim suffers from delay and latches, without
considering the fact that the original petition was filed by a group of
persons and the relief claimed therein squarely covers the interest of
the petitioners as well as other bonafide members on attaining

finality of the writ petition. The petitioners moved an application for
re-calling/modifying the said order to the extent that the said
observations may be re-called in respect of the present petitioners.
Thereafter, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to appoint the Court
Commissioner to examine the record and also the claims of various
claimants in respect of the Flats of the said Society. The Court
Commissioner submitted its report confirming the eligibility and
entitlement of the petitioners to the Flats in the said Society.
Thereafter, the said application came up for hearing and the same
has been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court. Hence, the present
petition.
1979 The Maitri Nagar Co-operative Group Housing
Society was formed under the provisions of Delhi Co-
operative Societies Act, 1972 with total 99 members.
21.12.1986 The Elections of the Society took place and Mr. Anand
Jain was elected as President.
20.12.1987 A GBM of the society was held and realizing the
arbitrary function of the then President Mr. Anand
Jain, it was resolved to conduct the fresh elections on
17th January, 1988. Thereafter, all the records
pertaining to the Society were removed by Mr. Anand
Jain.
21.12.1987 The so-called meeting was conducted by Mr. Anand
Jain and it was resolved to suspend Shri R.P.Jain from
the office of the Secretary of the Society.
07.01.1988 Upon the representation of 20 members of the Society,
the Registrar of the Societies Delhi was pleased to pass
the orders that (a) the Department would conduct
elections that were fallen due (b) Bank accounts
temporarily stopped.
12.01.1988 The Registrar of Co-operative Societies appointed Mr.
P.K.Panchal as Election Officer to conduct the
elections of the Society.
14.01.1988 The Registrar of Co-operative Societies revoked its
earlier order dated 07.01.1988 and 12.01.1988 and
appointed Mr. P.C. Kathuria as Election Officer and
was also appointed to conduct the enquiry under
Section 55 of the Act for assessing the working,
constitution, management and complaint received in
the office Mr. P.C.Kathuria instead of conducting the
enquiry Under Section 55 of the Act with the malafide
intention joined hands with Mr. Anand Jain and
submitted a report that 27 members incurred
disqualification in terms of Rule 25 of the Act.

24.02.1988 The Registrar of Co-operative Societies without
affording any opportunity to the persons concerned
passed the orders of cessation of membership of 27
members under Section 25 of the Act.
01.06.1988 The Lt. Governor, Delhi on the appeals filed by the
said 27 members was pleased to stay the order of
cessation of the 27 members and also directed the
Society that the Society should not enrolled new
members and further restrained from refunding the
amount to the said 27 persons who had challenged the
illegal expulsion.
10.08.1988 The draw of lots with regard to 69 members was
conducted as out of total 99 members the membership
of 27 members were subject to out come of the
decision of appeals fild by them and remaining 3
members could not complete the formalities.
09.12.1988 The Lt. Governor was pleased to set-aside the order
dt.24.02.1988 and remanded the matter back to the
Registrar for conducting fresh enquiry. Against the
said order Review application was filed by the Society.
18.01.1989 The Lt. Governor was pleased to dismiss the Review
application filed by the Society and further directed to
maintain status-quo.
27.9.1989 The Registrar was pleased to restore the membership
of 10 members out of 27 who were expelled vide order
dated 24.02.1988 and the remaining 17 members were
declared as disqualified.
The review petition filed by the Society against the
order dt.27.9.89 passed by the Lt. Governor is
disposed of with the observation of holding fresh
elections immediately.
27.10.1989 The notice for election for holding the elections on
18.11.1989 was issued.
25.6.1991 The Lt. Governor was pleased to dismiss the appeal
filed by the Society against the restoration of
membership of 10 persons as restored by the Registrar.
The Society did not challenge the order passed by the
Lt. Governor in respect of 10 members including the
petitioners, thus the restoration of membership of 10
persons including the petitioners became final.
13.8.1991 The Registrar extended the term of Administrator
w.e.f.1.12.90 to 30.11.91 and in place of Shri KJR
Burman, Shri A.D. Ahuja, Assistant Registrar was
duputed to manage the affairs of the society.
10.12.1991 The Writ Petition No.3871/1991 was filed by group of
persons which includes the persons whose membership

was never ceased as well as the persons whose
membership was ceased but restored, praying the relief
in respect of all the bonafide members of the Society,
as the Managing Committee of the Society did not
handed over the records of the Society to the
Administrator appointed by the Registrar of Societies,
despite repeated demands and the President with few
persons started dealing with the affairs of the Society
in arbitrary and illegal manner.
16.12.1991 This Hon’ble Court was pleased to issue notice on the
writ petition and was further pleased to direct the
respondent No.5 & 9 to hand over the entire records of
the society to the Administrator.
This Hon’ble Court was further pleased to direct the
respondents No.10 to 15 not to transfer alienate of part
with possession.
28.5.1992 This Hon’ble Court was pleased to appoint the Local
Commissioner to prepare a report as to who are in
actual physical possession of 99 Flats and the
respondent No.5 was restrained from interfering in the
work of the society and in any manner dealing with
alienating, transferring, allotting or parting with

possession of any flat forming part of Society
Complex.
26.6.1992 The Local Commissioner submitted its report
confirming the eligibility and entitlement of the
petitioners to the Flats in the said Society. A list of
unauthorized occupants was also filed before the
Hon’ble High Court.
9.11.1993 The Administrator in pursuance the directions of this
Hon’ble Court prepared a list of bonafide members of
the Society showing the names of 82 persons including
the names of the petitioners.
15.06.1994 The membership of other 16 members out of the
17 as were declared disqualified was restored
by the Registrar of Co-operative Society
20.09.1994 The Financial Commissioner was pleased to dismissed
the Revision petition of the Society in respect of the
restored membership of 16 persons
July, 1997 The amended memo of parties arraying the said
unauthorized occupants as respondents, as disclosed
during the pendency of the writ petition was filed
along with amended writ petition.
07.08.1997 The Hon’ble High Court allowed the application filed
by the petitioner to implead the unauthorized

occupants as respondents and accordingly the amended
writ petition is ordered to be taken on record.
14.06.2001 The present petitioners moved an application Under
Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. for their
impleadment as petitioners in the said writ petition.
21.08.2001 The above said application was allowed by the
Hon’ble High Court and the present petitioners were
allowed to join the proceedings as petitioners and were
directed to file the amended memo of parties.
28.08.2001 The amended memo of parties arraying the present
petitioners in terms of the order dated 28.08.01 was
filed. The matter was fixed for final hearing and
adjourned time to time for one reason or the other.
12.08.2005 On the date fixed the Society offered 5 Flats to the
petitioners, the Hon’ble High Court by way of interim
order directed that said Flats be given to those
petitioners who were petitioners in the original petition
on payment of Rs.8 lacs to the Society subject to
finalization of actual cost. In the said order the
Hon’ble High Court declined to pass any order in
relation to the present petitioners on the ground that
they joined the proceedings after 10 years and their
claim suffers from delay and latches, without

considering the fact that the original petition was filed
by a group of persons and the relief claimed therein
squarely covers the interest of the petitioners as well as
other bonafide members on attaining finality of the
writ petition.
04.10.2005 The present petitioners moved an application for re-
calling/modifying the said order to the extent that the
said observations may be re-called in respect of the
present petitioners.
10.05.2007 The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to appoint Mr.
Arvind Nigam to act as the Court Commissioner and to
examine the record and also the claims of various
claimants in respect of the Flats of the said Society.
13.08.2007 The Court Commissioner submitted its report
petitioners to the Flats in the said Society.
27.11.2009 The said application for review of order dated 12.08.05
came up for hearing and the same has been dismissed
by the Hon’ble High Court on the ground that the
prayer of the applicant suffers from delay and latches.
Hence, the present petition.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Question of Law:
1. When a petition filed in a representative capacity and
subsequently by way of amendment individuals are arrayed
as petitioners, can their claims be dismissed and those of
the other similarily situated persons maintained?
2 Whether in a writ petition filed in representative capacity
claiming relief in respect of all bonafide members of a
Group Housing Society against the illegal, arbitrary and
unauthorized acts of handing over possession of Flats to the
unauthorized persons like a builder, all the bonafide
members who are eligible to have the Flats can be
discriminated?
3. When the prayer as claimed in the writ petition specifically
covers the interest of all bonafide members of a Group
Housing Society, who are even not individually named as
petitioner, can be denied the right to have a Flat despite
being bonafide members only because they were not named
as petitioners in the writ petition.
4. Whether it is mandatory or essential for each and every
claimant/member of a Group Housing Society to join the
writ petition as a petitioner or to file a separate writ petition
to get a common relief as claimed by some of the
petitioners, otherwise they shall not be entitled to have
benefit of the decision merely on the ground that they did
not approached the Court personally?
5. Whether the principals laid down in catena of cases by this
Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble High Courts
extending the benefits of the out come of writ petition even
to those who are not a party to the writ petition, is not
applicable in case pertaining to Group Housing Society?

6. Whether in case once the impleadment application of the
applicants to join the petition as petitioners is allowed and
they joined the petition as petitioners are they not to be
treated at par with the other petitioners as if they were the
original petitioners since the date of filing the original
petition ?
7. Whether the subsequently joined petitioners in a writ
petition can be denied from their legal rights merely on the
ground that they joined the proceedings at a later stage than
the original petition or their claim suffers from delay or
latches though the writ petition is yet to be decided on
merits?
8. Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the
application for re-calling the part of order whereby the
petitioners were declared to be not entitled, to any relief
though they were already impleaded, on the ground of
delay or latches, though relief claimed by the petitioners are
part of the prayer in the original writ petition, which is yet
to be decided on merits?
9. Whether the Hon’ble High Court has erred in ignoring the
law of equity and justice while passing the impugned
orders?
10. Whether the impugned orders are sustainable in law?

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.________ OF 2010
(under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)
IN THE MATTER OF:
High Court In this Court
1. Smt. Shanta Ajmera Petitioner Petitioner

W/O Shri B.L.Ajmera,
C/O Shri P.L.Ajmera,
27, Chitrakut Apartment,
East Arjun Nagar,
Delhi-110032.
2. Shri Narayan Parshad Mantri, Petitioner Petitioner

East Arjun Nagar,
Delhi-110032.
3. Shri Ratan Lal Jhawar, Petitioner Petitioner

S/O Late Shri Panna Lal Ji Jhawar,
C/O Shri S.N. Jhawar,
76 State Bank Colony,
Near Nanak Piao Gurudwara,
Delhi.
Versus
1. Registrar, Contesting Contesting

Co-operative Societies, Delhi, Respondent
Respondent
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Lt. Governor of Delhi, Contesting

Contesting
Raj Niwas, Raj Niwas Marg, Respondent
Respondent
Delhi-110054.
3. The Maitri Nagar Co-operative Contesting
Contesting
Group Housing Society, Respondent
Respondent
Delhi-110085,
4. Delhi Development Authority, Contesting

Contesting
through the Vice-Chairman, Respondent
Respondent
5. Shri Anand Jain, Contesting Contesting

Flat No.202, Maitri Apartments, Respondent
Respondent
Delhi-110085.
6. Shri Sagar Chand, Contesting

Contesting
C-2/125, Ashok Vihar, Respondent
Respondent

Delhi-110052.
8. Smt. Manju Jain,

44, Maitri Apartments,
Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.
11. Shri K.C. Aggarwal,

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.
17. Shri G.K. Garg,

through his tenant Shri S.K. Arora,
Delhi-110085.
18. Shri G.K. Sharma,

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Shri Rajesh Gulati,
Delhi-110085.
21. Shri T.K. Gupta,

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.
26(a). Smt. Rekha Aggarwal,

26(b). Master Ashish Aggarwal,

26(c). Baby Arunima Aggarwal,

ALL RESIDENT OF:

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.
28. Shri B.S. Sarna,
Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.
30. Shri H.R. Lal,

Delhi-110085.
Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.
34. Shri K.R.Punia,

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Smt. Bimla Devi, Flat No.406-A,
Maitri Apartments, Plot No.29,
Sector-IX, Rohini, Delhi-110085.
Delhi-110085.

Shri Rajesh Banga,
Delhi-110085.
1. Shri D.C. Maheshwari, Petitioner Performa respondent

D-25, C.C. Colony,
Delhi-110007.

Bazar Sita Ram,
3. Shri R.K. Kothari,

403, Laxmi Bhawan,
72, Nehru Place,
New Delhi.



Outer Ring road,
New Delhi-110041.

Delhi-110085.
Delhi-110085.

New Delhi-110055.

Delhi-110085.


Delhi-110085.
14. Shri V.K. Jain,

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110031.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.
..PETITIIONERS
Versus
D.C. Maheshwari & Ors. ..PETITIONERS

Versus
Registrar Co-operative Societies & Ors. ..RESPONDENTS
Present: Mr.A.S.Chandhiok with Rajiv Mehra for the applicant.
C.M.4034/92 in W.P.(C) No.3871 of 1991
Notice for 9th July, 92. After hearing Ld. Counsel for
the applicant we are of the opinion that ex-parte order
should be made. Mr. Arvind Nigam Advocate who is
present in Court is appointed as Local Commissioner to
visit Maitri Nagar Co-op. Group Housing Society Ltd. at
Plot No.29 Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-85 to make a report as to
who are in actual physical possession of 99 flats of the
society. We will also restrain respondent No.5 from in any
manner interfering in the work of the society or in any
manner dealing with, alienating transferring, allotting or
parting with possession of any flat forming part of the
societies complex. Respondent No.5 is also restrained
from creating any impediment of any nature of whatsoever
in the ingress and egress of any member of the society,
family members, friends, visitors and employees, Local
Commissioner shall also make a report if there has been
any such impediment. Local Commissioner will also place
his own locks on the flats, which he finds unoccupied. A
direction is
SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
That the Maitri Nagar Co-operative Group Housing
Society was formed under the provisions of the Delhi Co-
operative Societies Act with a total membership of 99
persons. A peace of land was allotted vide plot No.29,
Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi for constructions of 99 Flats. Some
dispute had arisen between the members of the Managing
Committee as the then President was doing the affairs of the
Society in arbitrary and illegal manner. The members of the
Society in a group approached the Registrar Co-operative
Societies to conduct the elections which had fallen due. On
this the Registrar Co-operative Societies appointed the
Election Officer and directed to conduct the elections within
one month. The Registrar also appointed the Election Officer
to conduct the enquiry under Section 55 in respect of
constitution, management the complaints received in the
office of the Registrar. Thereafter, the Assistant Registrar

informed the Society that 27 members were incurring
disqualification in terms of Rule 25 of Delhi Co-operative
Societies Rules, 1973 and the bye-laws of the Society. On
coming to know about the said cessation of membership, the
said 27 members approached the Lt. Governor by preferring
appeal under the provisions of the Act challenging the said
order. The Lt. Governor was pleased to restrain the Society
from enrolling new members in place of the said 27 members.
During the pendency of the said proceedings a draw of lots of
allotment of 69 members was conducted as the membership
of 27 members was under dispute and 3 members could not
complete the formalities. The Lt. Governor was pleased to
allow the Revision Petitions filed by the said 27 members and
remanded the matter of cessation of said 27 members for
reconsideration with proper opportunity to the members and
ordered that status-quo be maintained in respect of said 27
members untill their dispute is finally adjudicated. The
Registrar re-examined the matter and restored the
membership of 10 persons including the present petitioners.
However, maintained the earlier order of cessation of
membership in respect of remaining 17 members. The
Registrar superseded the Managing Committee of the Society
and appointed the Administrator. The remaining 17

members, whose membership was not restored, again
approached the Lt. Governor and their matter was again
remanded to the Registrar in view of the facts and
submissions made by them. The Registrar re-examined the
matter afresh and restored the membership of 16 members out
of the said remaining 17 members. The Society challenged
the said restoration firstly, in respect of the restoration of
membership of 10 persons, which includes the petitioners and
thereafter in respect of the remaining 16 members but the said
Revision Petition were dismissed. The Society did not
challenge the order passed by the Lt. Governor in respect of
10 members including the petitioners, thus the restoration of
membership of 10 persons including the petitioners became
final. As the Managing Committee of the Society did not
handed over the records of the Society to the Administrator
appointed by the Registrar of Societies, despite repeated
demands and the President with few persons started dealing
with the affairs of the Society as if they were the builders and
the Flats were owned by them, a group of persons which
includes the persons whose membership was never ceased as
well as the persons whose membership was ceased but
restored, filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court
praying the relief in respect of all the bonafide members of

the Society. The Hon’ble High Court repeatedly passed from
time to time the restrain orders against the Managing
Committee of the Society from alienating, transferring or
dealing with the Flats of the Society and directed the
Managing Committee to handover the records of the Society
to the Administrator but neither the records were handed over
nor the Ex-President of the Society desist from illegal and
arbitrary activities and keep on handing over the possession to
unauthorized persons for extraneous considerations. The
Hon’ble High Court appointed the Local Commissioner to
inspect the site and to take over the possession of vacant Flats
by putting his lock. The Local Commissioner so appointed
visited the spot and noticed that in addition to the board of the
Society another board by the name of “Anand Apartments”
has been affixed and various persons were found in
unauthorized possession of the Flats and various Flats were
unoccupied but since there were no doors, the Local
Commissioner could not put his lock except on one Flat. A
list of unauthorized occupants was filed before the Hon’ble
High Court. On this, amended memo of parties with
amended writ petition was filed arraying the said
unauthorized occupants as respondents. The present
petitioners moved an application Under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w

Section 151 C.P.C. for their impleadment as petitioners in the
said writ petition. The said application was allowed and the
present petitioners joined the proceedings as petitioners. The
matter was fixed for final hearing and adjourned time to time
for one reason or the other. On a date of hearing, the Society
offered 5 Flats to the petitioners, the Hon’ble High Court by
way of interim order directed that said Flats be given to those
petitioners who were petitioners in the original petition on
payment of Rs.7 lacs to the Society subject to finalization of
actual cost. In the said order the Hon’ble High Court
declined the present petitioners on the ground that they joined
the proceedings after 10 years and their claim suffers from
delay and latches, without considering the fact that the
original petition was filed by a group of persons and the relief
claimed therein squarely covers the interest of the petitioners
as well as other bonafide members on attaining finality of the
writ petition. The petitioners moved an application for re-
calling/modifying the said order to the extent that the said
observations may be re-called in respect of the present
petitioners. Thereafter, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased
to appoint the Court Commissioner to examine the record and
also the claims of various claimants in respect of the Flats of
the said Society. The Court Commissioner submitted its

report confirming the eligibility and entitlement of the
petitioners to the Flats in the said Society. Thereafter, the
said application came up for hearing and the Hon’ble High
Court has dismissed the same. Hence, the present petition.
Society was formed under the provisions of
Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 with
total 99 members.
21.12.1986 The Elections of the Society took place and Mr.
Anand Jain was elected as President.
20.12.1987 A GBM of the society was held and realizing
the arbitrary function of the then President Mr.
Anand Jain, it was resolved to conduct the fresh
elections on 17th January, 1988. Thereafter, all
the records pertaining to the Society were
removed by Mr. Anand Jain.
21.12.1987 The so-called meeting was conducted by Mr.
Anand Jain and it was resolved to suspend Shri
R.P.Jain from the office of the Secretary of the
Society.
07.01.1988 Upon the representation of 20 members of the
Society, the Registrar of the Societies Delhi was
pleased to pass the orders that (a) the

Department would conduct elections that were
fallen due (b) Bank accounts temporarily
stopped.
12.01.1988 The Registrar of Co-operative Societies
appointed Mr. P.K.Panchal as Election Officer
to conduct the elections of the Society.
14.01.1988 The Registrar of Co-operative Societies appointed
Mr. P.C. Kathuria as Election Officer to hold the
elections of the Managing Committee in
accordance with the provisions of Delhi Co-
operative Societies Act within one month.
[A copy of the order dated 14.01.1988 is being

enclosed as Annexure P-1]
The Registrar of Co-operative Societies by a separate
order also appointed Mr. P.C. Kathuria to
conduct the enquiry under Section 55 of the Act
for assessing the working, constitution,
management and complaint received in the
office.

affording any opportunity to the persons

concerned passed the orders of cessation of
membership of 27 members U/S 25 of the Act.

01.06.1988 The Lt. Governor, Delhi on the appeals filed by
the said 27 members was pleased to stay the
order of cessation of the 27 members and also
directed the Society that the Society should not
enrolled new members and further restrained
from refunding the amount to the said 27
persons who had challenged the illegal
expulsion.

10.08.1988 The draw of lots with regard to 69 members
was conducted as out of total 99 members the
membership of 27 members were subject to out
come of the decision of appeals fild by them
and remaining 3 members could not complete
the formalities.
[A copy of the draw of lot dated 10.08.1988 is

being enclosed as Annexure P-5 (Colly.)]
09.12.1988 The Lt. Governor was pleased to set-aside the
order dt.24.02.1988 and remanded the matter

back to the Registrar for conducting fresh
enquiry.

Review application filed by the Society and
further directed to maintain status-quo.

27.9.1989 The Registrar was pleased to restore the
membership of 10 members out of 27 who were
expelled vide order dated 24.02.1988 and the
remaining 17 members were declared as
disqualified.
[A copy of the
as Annexure P-8]
The Lt. Governor dismissed the revision
petition filed by the Society against the order
dt.09.12.88 is disposed of with the observation
of holding fresh elections immediately.
[A copy of the order is being enclosed as

Annexure P-9]
30.05.1990 The Registrar

superceded the Managing Committee under Section 32
of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act and appointed
Mr. K.J.R. Burman as an Administrator of the Society.
13.03.1991 The Registrar
extended the period of supercession of the Society upto
30.11.1991 and in place of Administrator Mr. K.J.R.
Burman, Mr. A.D. Ahuja has been appointed as
Administrator.
restored by the Registrar. The Society did not
challenge the order passed by the Lt. Governor
in respect of 10 members including the
petitioners, thus the restoration of membership
of 10 persons including the petitioners became
final.

10.12.1991 The Writ Petition No.3871/1991 was filed by
group of persons which includes the persons
whose membership was never ceased as well as
the persons whose membership was ceased but
restored, praying the relief as under:
a) An appropriate writ, order or direction to
the Administrator to take charge of the records of
the society with respect to the financial and

Administrative aspects and also to get the accounts
of the society audited by an independent auditor,
and further a direction to the society to hand-over
the records of the Society to the administrator
immediately.
b) An appropriate writ, order or direction to
ascertain the electoral and to publish the list of
Members and to hold elections immediately.
c) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus with a direction to the
Registrar and the Delhi Development Authority to
hold fresh draw of lots with respect to the entire
flats and accordingly reserve 17 flats in view of the
pendency of the Appeal with the Lt. Governor of
Delhi.
Alternatively, to issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to the
Registrar and the Delhi Development Authority to
at-least hold draw of lots with respect to the 10
members whose Membership has been confirmed
by the Registrar vide order dated 27.9.89 and to file
on record the flats which are to be reserved for the
remaining 17 Members whose appeal is pending
with the Hon’ble Lt. Governor, Delhi.

d) An Appropriate writ, order or direction in
the nature Certiorari quashing the allotment of flats
made by then Managing Committee, including all
illegal allotments.
e) To issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature prohibition, restraining the respondents 10 to
15 from transferring, alienating, parting with
possession and encumbering the flats in their
possession in any manner any-wise.
f) To issue a direction to the Respondents 10 to
15 to vacate the flats in which they are in illegal
possession and hand-over the vacant possession of
the same to the Administrator.
g) To issue an appropriate writ, order and/or a
direction to appoint Local Commissioner to Survey
all 99 Flats and to submit a report as to the status of
the occupants of the flats.
h) Such other writs/orders and/or directions as this
Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice
may also be passed.
[A copy of the Writ Petition dated 28.11.1991 is

being enclosed as Annexure P-13]
16.12.1991 This Hon’ble Court was pleased to issue notice
on the writ petition and was further pleased to
direct the respondent No.5 & 9 to hand over the

entire records of the society to the
Administrator. This Hon’ble Court was further
pleased to direct the respondents No.10 to 15
not to transfer alienate of part with possession.

28.5.1992 This Hon’ble Court was pleased to appoint the
Local Commissioner to prepare a report as to
who are in actual physical possession of 99
Flats and the respondent No.5 was restrained
from interfering in the work of the society and
in any manner dealing with alienating,
transferring, allotting or parting with possession
of any flat forming part of Society Complex.

petitioners to the Flats in the said Society. A
list of unauthorized occupants was also filed
before the Hon’ble High Court.
[A copy of the Report of the Local

Commissioner dated 26.06.1992 is being
09.11.1993 The Administrator in pursuance the directions
of this Hon’ble Court prepared a list of bonafide
members of the Society as on 09.11.1993
showing the names of 82 persons including the
names of the petitioners.

15.06.1994 The membership of other 16 members out
of the 17 as were declared disqualified was
restored by the Registrar of Co-operative
Society.
20.09.1994 The Financial Commissioner was pleased to
dismiss the Revision petition of the Society in
respect of the restored membership of 16
persons.
July, 1997 The amended memo of parties with amended
writ petition arraying the said unauthorized
occupants as respondents filed in pursuance to
the directions to implead the unauthorized
occupants and respondents in the writ petition.
The amended writ petition was filed with the
following prayer:
(1) An appropriate writ, order or direction to the
registrar co-operative societies to get the accounts
of the society audited by an independent auditor.
(2) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction,
including a writ of mandamus, directing the
registrar, co-operative socieites to ensure elections
to the managing committee of the respondent no.3
society are held in accordance with the rules of the
said soceity and bye-laws under the co-operative
societies act and within the time framed prescribed
therein or the act.
(3) A writ of mandamus commanding the
respondents, namely, registrar co-operative societies
and delhi development authority to hold fresh draw
of lots with respect to the entire remaining 30 flats
(earlier draw of lots have only been confined to 69
flats).
(4) Direct and cause to direct the registrar and
respondent no.3 society to hand over the possession
of the said flats to the members successful in the
draw of lots.
(5) An appropriate writ, order or direction,
including a writ of certiorari quashing the alleged
membership or alleged allotment of flats by mr.
Anand jain or any one else with a direction to

respondents 10 to 38 and/or any one of them to
handover the possession to the successful members
in the draw to be held by D.D.A.
(6) An appropriate writ order or direction
respondent no.10 to 38 to hand over the vacant and
physical possession of the flats in their illegal
possession to the receiver appointed by this Hon’ble
Court or to a local commissioner appointed by this
Hon’ble Court who, in turn, may hand over the
possession as per draw of lots.
(7) A writ of prohibition restraining respondents
10 to 38 their agents, servants and/or anyone
claiming through them from transferring, alienating
or parting with possession or from encumbering the
flats in any manner anywise.
(8) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction
including a writ of mandamous commending
respondent no.1 the registrar cooperative societies,
its officers and agents to get the complaint filed
before Metropolitan Magistrate restored and/or to
prosecute the same to ultimate conclusion and to
take all steps that are necessary in relation to
respondent no.3 as are warranted by the provisions
of the societies act, the rules framed there under

and/or the directions as issued by this Hon’ble
Court from time to time.”
[A copy of the Amended Memo of Parties with

Amended Writ Petition dated July, 1997 is
being enclosed hereto as Annexure P-18]
07.08.1997 The Hon’ble High Court allowed the
application filed by the petitioner to implead the
unauthorized occupants as respondents and
accordingly the amended writ petition is
ordered to be taken on record.

enclosed hereto as Annexure P-19]
14.06.2001 The present petitioners moved an application
Under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 C.P.C.
for their impleadment as petitioners in the said
writ petition.
[A copy of the said application dated

14.06.2001 is being enclosed hereto as
Annexure P-20]
Hon’ble High Court and the present petitioners
were allowed to join the proceedings as
petitioners and were directed to file the
amended memo of parties.

28.08.2001 The amended memo of parties arraying the
present petitioners in terms of the order dated
21.08.01 was filed.
[A copy of the Amended Memo of Parties dated

28.08.2001 is being enclosed hereto as
Annexure P-22]
12.08.2005 The Society offered that only 5 Flats are

lying vacant and rest of the Flats are occupied and they
were ready to handover the possession of 5 Flats to the
petitioners. Without going into the merits of the case
and factum of unauthorized occupants, the Hon’ble
High Court by way of interim orders directed that said
Flats be given to those petitioners who were petitioners
in the original petition on payment of Rs.8 lacs to the
Society subject to finalization of actual cost. In the said
order the Hon’ble High Court declined to pass any
order in relation to the present petitioners on the
ground that they joined the proceedings after 10 years
and their claim suffers from delay and latches, without
considering the fact that the original petition was filed
by a group of persons and the relief claimed therein
squarely covers the interest of the petitioners as well.
04.10.2005 The present petitioners moved an

application for re-calling/modifying the order dated
12.08.2005 to the extent that the said observations may
be re-called in respect of the present petitioners as the
writ petition is yet to be finally decided and the present
petitioners as well as other bonafide members are
entitled to the Flats and those who are unauthorized
occupant are liable to vacate the Flats.
[A copy of the application dated 04.10.2005 is
being enclosed hereto as Annexure P-24]
10.05.2007 The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to appoint
Mr. Arvind Nigam to act as the Court
Commissioner and to examine the record and

also the claims of various claimants in respect
of the Flats of the said Society.

13.08.2007 The Court Commissioner submitted its

various persons including the present petitioners to the
Flats in the said Society.
[A copy of the Report of the Court
Commissioner dated 13.08.2007 is being
17.04.2009 The Hon’ble High Court in the connected

writ petition (Civil) No.2890 of 1995 filed by the Society
challenging the restoration of other 16 members to the
original membership is dismissed and thereby the said
16 members are also eligible to get the Flat in the
Society as the physical possession are with unauthorized
occupants.
[A copy of the Judgment dated 17.04.2009
passed W.P.(C) No.2890 of 1995 is being
The Hon’ble High Court in another
connected Writ Petition (C) No.5398 of 1997
declared that the petitioners in the said writ
petition be treated as members of Society at all
relevant times.
[A copy of the Judgment dt.17.04.2009 passed

W.P.(C) No.5398 of 1997 is being enclosed
hereto as Annexure P-28]
27.11.2009 The said application for review/re-calling of
order dated 12.08.05 has been dismissed by the
Hon’ble High Court.

[A copy of the order dt.27.11.2009 is being

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTON
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITON (CIVIL) NO.______ OF 2010

[ARISING FROM ORDERS DATED 12.08.2005 AND 27.11.2009 IN
WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO. 3871 OF 1991 PASSED BY THE
HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI]
IN THE MATTER OF:
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
In the High Court In this Court
1. Smt. Shanta Ajmera Petitioner No.18 Petitioner No.1

W/O Shri B.L.Ajmera,
East Arjun Nagar,
Delhi-110032.

S/O Late Shri D.L.Mantri, Petitioner No.19 Petitioner No.2
East Arjun Nagar,
Delhi-110032.
3. Shri Ratan Lal Jhawar, Petitioner No.20 Petitioner No.3

S/O Late Shri Panna Lal Ji Jhawar,
C/O Shri S.N. Jhawar,
76 State Bank Colony,
Delhi.
..PETITIONERS
Versus
1. Registrar, Respondent No.1 Respondent No.1

Co-operative Societies, Delhi, Contesting Respondent
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Lt. Governor of Delhi, Respondent No.2 Respondent No.2
Raj Niwas, Raj Niwas Marg, Contesting Respondent
Delhi-110054.

Group Housing Society, Respondent No.3 Respondent No.3
Plot No.29, Sector-IX, Rohini, Contesting Respondent
Delhi-110085,
Through its Secretary.
through the Vice-Chairman, Respondent No.4 Respondent No.4
Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. Contesting Respondent
5. Shri Anand Jain, Respondent No.5 Respondent No.5

Flat No.202, Maitri Apartments, Contesting Respondent
Delhi-110085.
6. Shri Sagar Chand, Respondent No.6 Respondent No.6

C-2/125, Ashok Vihar, Contesting Respondent
7. Shri Nipun Kumar, Respondent No.7 Respondent No.7

J-58-D, L.I.G. Flats, Contesting Respondent
Delhi-110052.
8. Smt. Manju Jain, Respondent No.8 Respondent No.8

44, Maitri Apartments, Contesting Respondent
Delhi-110085.
9. Shri Sham Lal Jain, Respondent No.9 Respondent No.9

Delhi-110085.
10. Smt. Sudesh Devi Gupta, Respondent No.10 Respondent No.10

Delhi-110085.
11. Shri K.C. Aggarwal, Respondent No.11 Respondent No.11

Delhi-110085.
12. Shri Jaybir Singh Kalra, Respondent No.12 Respondent No.12

Delhi-110085.
13. Smt. Indresh Aggarwal, Respondent No.13 Respondent No.13

Delhi-110085.
14. Shri Akshay Dogra, Respondent No.14 Respondent No.14
Delhi-110085.
15. Smt. Tarlochan Kaur, Respondent No.15 Respondent No.15

Delhi-110085.
16. Shri Jai Shree Garg, Respondent No.16 Respondent No.16

Flat No.6-B, Maitri Apartments, Contesting Respondent
Delhi-110085.
17. Shri G.K. Garg, Respondent No.17 Respondent No.17

through his tenant Shri S.K. Arora, Contesting Respondent
Delhi-110085.
18. Shri G.K. Sharma, Respondent No.18 Respondent No.18

Delhi-110085.
19. Sh. Banwari Lal Sharma, Respondent No.19 Respondent No.19

Delhi-110085.
20. Smt. Promilla Aggarwal, Respondent No.20 Respondent No.20
through General Power of Attorney, Contesting Respondent
Shri Rajesh Gulati,
Delhi-110085.
21. Shri T.K. Gupta, Respondent No.21 Respondent No.21
Delhi-110085.
22. Shri Subash Singla, Respondent No.22 Respondent No.22
Delhi-110085.
23. Shri Anil Kumar, Respondent No.23 Respondent No.23
Delhi-110085.
24. Shri Rakesh Bhasin, Respondent No.24 Respondent No.24
Delhi-110085.
25. Shri Parveen Singla, Respondent No.25 Respondent No.25
Delhi-110085.
26(a). Smt. Rekha Aggarwal, Respondent No.26(a) Respondent No.26(a)
W/O Late Shri Anil Aggarwal, Contesting Respondent
Delhi-110085.
26(b). Master Ashish Aggarwal, Respondent No.26(b) Respondent No.26(b)

S/O Late Shri Anil Aggarwal, Contesting Respondent
Delhi-110085.
26(c). Baby Arunima Aggarwal, Respondent No.26(c) Respondent No.26(c)

D/O Late Shri Anil Aggarwal, Contesting Respondent
Delhi-110085.
27. Shri Parduman Kumar, Respondent No.27 Respondent No.27

Delhi-110085.
28. Shri B.S. Sarna, Respondent No.28 Respondent No.28

Flat No.004A, Maitri Apartments, Contesting Respondent
Delhi-110085.
29. Shri Arun Singla, Respondent No.29 Respondent No.29

Delhi-110085.
30. Shri H.R. Lal, Respondent No.30 Respondent No.30

Delhi-110085.
31. Smt. B.K.Chadha, Respondent No.31 Respondent No.31

Delhi-110085.
32. Smt. Laxmi Devi Madan, Respondent No.32 Respondent No.32

Delhi-110085.
33. Shri K.M.Tanwar, Respondent No.33 Respondent No.33

Flat No.301-A, Maitri Apartments, Contesting Respondent
Delhi-110085.
34. Shri K.R.Punia, Respondent No.34 Respondent No.34

Delhi-110085.
35. Dr. (Mrs.) Manju Singla, Respondent No.35 Respondent No.35

Delhi-110085.
36. Smt. Kanta Anand, Respondent No.36 Respondent No.36

Smt. Bimla Devi, Flat No.406-A,
Maitri Apartments, Plot No.29,
Sector-IX, Rohini, Delhi-110085.
37. Shri C.L.Aggarwal, Respondent No.37 Respondent No.37

Delhi-110085.
38. Shri Sushil Chadha, Respondent No.38 Respondent No.38

through his Representative, Contesting Respondent
Shri Rajesh Banga,
Delhi-110085.
…Contesting Respondents
39. Shri D.C. Maheshwari, Petitioner No.1 Performa Respondent

D-25, C.C. Colony,
Delhi-110007.
40. Shri Ram Partap Goel, Petitioner No.2 Performa Respondent

Bazar Sita Ram,
41. Shri R.K. Kothari, Petitioner No.3 Performa Respondent

403, Laxmi Bhawan,
72, Nehru Place,
New Delhi.
42. Shri Prem Prakash Bansal, Petitioner No.4 Performa Respondent

43. Shri Tek Chand Jain, Petitioner No.5 Performa Respondent

44. Shri Richipal Jain, Petitioner No.6 Performa Respondent
Outer Ring road,
New Delhi-110041.
45. Shri Pawan Kumar Jain, Petitioner No.7 Performa Respondent

Delhi-110085.
46. Shri Niranjan Pal Singh, Petitioner No.8 Performa Respondent

47. Smt. Chandrawati, Petitioner No.9 Performa Respondent

Delhi-110085.
48. Shri Pawan Kumar Aggarwal, Petitioner No.10 Performa Respondent
New Delhi-110055.
49. Shri Naveen Kumar Jain, Petitioner No.11 Performa Respondent

Delhi-110085.
50. Smt. Sudershan Kumari, Petitioner No.12 Performa Respondent

51. Shri Virender Kumar Jain, Petitioner No.13 Performa Respondent

Delhi-110085.
52. Shri V.K. Jain, Petitioner No.14 Performa Respondent

Delhi-110085.

1460, Raj Garh Colony, Petitioner No.15 Performa Respondent
Delhi-110031.
54. Sh. Rakesh Kumar Marwah, Petitioner No.16 Performa Respondent

Delhi-110085.
55. Shri Gurender Singh, Petitioner No.17 Performa Respondent

Delhi-110085.
Respondents No.39 to 55 are Performa

Respondents
To
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF
INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF
THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITON
OF THE PETITIONERS ABOVE
NAMED
1. The present Special Leave Petition is being preferred
against the impugned order dated 12.08.2005 and order
dated 27.11.2009 passed in the Writ Petition (Civil)
No.3871 of 1991 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated
12.08.2005 declined the claim of the petitioners on the
ground that the petitioners joined the petition after 10
years and their claim suffer from delay and latches.
The Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 27.11.2009

dismiss the application of the petitioners for re-calling
of the order dated 12.08.2005 to the extent of the said
part of the order.
2. QUESTION OF LAW:
a. When a petition filed in a representative
capacity and subsequently by way of
amendment individuals are arrayed as
petitioners, can their claims be dismissed and
those of the other similarly situated persons
maintained?
b. Whether in a writ petition filed in representative
capacity claiming relief in respect of all
bonafide members of a Group Housing Society
against the illegal, arbitrary and unauthorized
acts of handing over possession of Flats to the
unauthorized persons, all the bonafide members
who are eligible to have the Flats can be
discriminated?
c. When the prayer as claimed in the writ petition
specifically covers the interest of all bonafide
members of a Group Housing Society, who are
even not individually named as petitioner, can
be denied the right to have a Flat despite being

bonafide members only because they were not
named as petitioners in the writ petition.
d. Whether it is mandatory or essential for each
and every claimant/member of a Group Housing
Society to join the writ petition as a petitioner
or to file a separate writ petition to get a
common relief as claimed by some of the
petitioners, otherwise they shall not be entitled
to have benefit of the decision merely on the
ground that they did not approached the Court
personally?
e. Whether the principals laid down in catena of
cases by this Hon’ble Apex Court as well as
Hon’ble High Courts extending the benefits of
the out come of writ petition even to those who
are not a party to the writ petition, is not
applicable in case pertaining to Group Housing
Society?
f. Whether in case once the impleadment
application of the applicants to join the petition
as petitioners is allowed and they joined the
petition as petitioners are they not to be treated
at par with the other petitioners as if they were

the original petitioners since the date of filing
the original petition?
g. Whether the subsequently joined petitioners in a
writ petition can be denied from their legal
rights merely on the ground that they joined the
proceedings at a later stage than the original
petition or their claim suffers from delay or
latches though the writ petition is yet to be
finally decided on merits?
h. Whether the High Court was justified in
dismissing the application for re-calling the part
of order whereby the petitioners were declared
not to be entitled, to any relief though they were
already impleaded, on the ground of delay or
latches, though relief claimed by the petitioners
are part of the prayer in the original writ
petition, which is yet to be decided on merits?
i. Whether the Hon’ble High Court has erred in
ignoring the law of equity and justice while
passing the impugned orders?
j. Whether the impugned orders are sustainable in
law?
3. Declaration in Terms of Rule 4(2):

The petitioners states that no other petition seeking
Special Leave Petition to appeal has been filed by the
petitioners against the impugned orders of the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi.
4. Declaration in Terms of rule 6:
Certified that the annexures P-1 to P- 22 produced
along with the Special Leave Petition is true copy of
the pleadings/documents, which formed part of the
record of the case in the Court below against whose
orders the Leave to appeal is sought for in this petition.
5. GROUNDS
A. Because the Hon’ble High Court has failed to
appreciate that when a petition filed in a
representative capacity and subsequently by
way of amendment individuals are arrayed as
petitioners, their claims cannot be denied once
the claim of those who are similarly situated
persons is allowed to be maintained.
B. Because the Hon’ble High Court has failed to
appreciate that the writ petition was filed in a
representative capacity claiming relief in
respect of all those bonafide members of a
Group Housing Society, who were eligible to

have the Flats and against the illegal, arbitrary
and unauthorized acts of handing over
possession of Flats to the unauthorized persons.
C. Because the Hon’ble High Court has ignored
the fact that the prayer as claimed in the writ
petition specifically covers the interest of all
bonafide members of a Group Housing Society,
who are even not individually named as
petitioner, thus the claim of present petitioners
can not be denied of their legal rights to have a
Flat only because they were not named as
petitioners in the original writ petition and
joined as petitioners subsequently.
D. Because the Hon’ble High Court has failed to
appreciate that it is neither mandatory nor
essential for each and every claimant/ member
of a Group Housing Society to join the writ
petition as a petitioner to get a common relief
and the order passed in the writ is applicable to
all those who are similarly situated irrespective
of they being petitioner personally or not.
E. Because the court below has erred in depriving
the petitioners of their legal rights merely on the

ground that they did not approached the Court
initially.
F. Because the court below has completely
overlooked the principals laid down in catena of
cases by this Hon’ble Apex Court as well as
Hon’ble High Courts extending the benefits of
the out come of writ petition even to those who
are not a party to the writ petition.
G. Because the court below has failed to appreciate
that in a case once the impleadment application
of the applicants to join the petition as
petitioners is allowed and they joined the
petition as petitioners, they are to be treated at
par with the other petitioners as if they were the
original petitioners since the date of filing the
original petition.
H. Because the court below has failed to appreciate
that the subsequently joined petitioners in a writ
petition cannot be denied from their legal rights
merely on the ground that they joined the
proceedings at a later stage and those persons
cannot be excluded from the relief merely since
they joined later or their claim suffers from

delay or latches though the writ petition is yet to
be decided finally on merits.
I. Because the court below has committed a grave
error in dismissing the application for re-calling
the part of order whereby the petitioners were
declined to any relief though they were already
impleaded, and the relief claimed by the
petitioners is part of the prayer in the original
writ petition, which is yet to be decided finally
on merits.
J. Because the Court below has erred in ignoring
the law of equity and justice while passing the
impugned orders?
K. Because the impugned orders are unsustainable
in law.
6. Ground for Interim Relief:
The Writ Petition is pending for final disposal, the
petitioners are challenging the impugned orders and if
the writ petition is finally disposed by the Hon’ble
High Court before decision of the present Special
Leave Petition, the petitioners shall suffer irreparable
loss and there shall be multiplicity of litigation.

Hence, the final disposal of the writ petition may
kindly be stayed till disposal of the present petition.
7. Main Prayer:
The petitioners respectfully prays that this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to grant the following prayer:
i) Grant of Special Leave to appeal against the
impugned orders dated 12.08.2005 and 27.11.2009
passed in W.P.(C) No.3871 of 1991 by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi.
ii) Pass any such further orders which this Hon’ble
Court deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
8. Prayer for Interim Relief:
i) Pass the directions to the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi to defer the final disposal of the Writ
Petition (C) No.3871 of 1991 till final disposal
of the present Special Leave Petition.
ii) Pass any other order/direction/relief, which this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the present case.
DRAWN BY FILED BY
ANIL AGGARWAL
(Mrs. NARESH BAKSHI)

DRAWN ON: 29.01.2010
FILED ON :
Society was formed under the provisions of
Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 with
total 99 members.
21.12.1986 The Elections of the Society took place and Mr.
Anand Jain was elected as President.
20.12.1987 A GBM of the society was held and realizing
the arbitrary function of the then President Mr.
Anand Jain, it was resolved to conduct the fresh
elections on 17th January, 1988. Thereafter, all
the records pertaining to the Society were
removed by Mr. Anand Jain.

21.12.1987 The so-called meeting was conducted by Mr.
Anand Jain and it was resolved to suspend Shri
R.P.Jain from the office of the Secretary of the
Society.
07.01.1988 Upon the representation of 20 members of the
Society, the Registrar of the Societies Delhi was
pleased to pass the orders that (a) the
Department would conduct elections that were
fallen due (b) Bank accounts temporarily
stopped.
12.01.1988 The Registrar of Co-operative Societies
appointed Mr. P.K.Panchal as Election Officer
to conduct the elections of the Society.
14.01.1988 The Registrar of Co-operative Societies revoked
its earlier order dated 07.01.1988 and
12.01.1988 and appointed Mr. P.C. Kathuria as
Election Officer and was also appointed to
conduct the enquiry under Section 55 of the Act
for assessing the working, constitution,
management and complaint received in the
office Mr. P.C.Kathuria instead of conducting
the enquiry Under Section 55 of the Act with
the malafide intention joined hands with Mr.

Anand Jain and submitted a report that 27
members incurred disqualification in terms of
Rule 25 of the Act.
affording any opportunity to the persons
concerned passed the orders of cessation of
membership of 27 members under Section 25 of
the Act.
01.06.1988 The Lt. Governor, Delhi on the appeals filed by
the said 27 members was pleased to stay the
order of cessation of the 27 members and also
directed the Society that the Society should not
enrolled new members and further restrained
from refunding the amount to the said 27
persons who had challenged the illegal
expulsion.
10.08.1988 The draw of lots with regard to 69 members
was conducted as out of total 99 members the
membership of 27 members were subject to out
come of the decision of appeals filed by them
and remaining 3 members could not complete
the formalities.
09.12.1988 The Lt. Governor was pleased to set-aside the
order dt.24.02.1988 and remanded the matter
back to the Registrar for conducting fresh
enquiry. Against the said order Review
application was filed by the Society.
Review application filed by the Society and
further directed to maintain status-quo.
27.9.1989 The Registrar was pleased to restore the
membership of 10 members out of 27 who were
expelled vide order dated 24.02.1988 and the
remaining 17 members were declared as
disqualified.
The review petition filed by the Society against
the order dt.27.9.89 passed by the Lt. Governor
is disposed of with the observation of holding
fresh elections immediately.
27.10.1989 The notice for election for holding the elections
on 18.11.1989 was issued.
restored by the Registrar. The Society did not

challenge the order passed by the Lt. Governor
in respect of 10 members including the
petitioners, thus the restoration of membership
of 10 persons including the petitioners became
final.
13.8.1991 The Registrar extended the term of
Administrator w.e.f.1.12.90 to 30.11.91 and in
place of Shri KJR Burman, Shri A.D. Ahuja,
Assistant Registrar was deputed to manage the
affairs of the society.
10.12.1991 The Writ Petition No.3871/1991 was filed by
group of persons which includes the persons
whose membership was never ceased as well as
the persons whose membership was ceased but
restored, praying the relief in respect of all the
bonafide members of the Society, as the
Managing Committee of the Society did not
Administrator appointed by the Registrar of
Societies, despite repeated demands and the
President with few persons started dealing with
the affairs of the Society in arbitrary and illegal
manner.
16.12.1991 This Hon’ble Court was pleased to issue notice
on the writ petition and was further pleased to
direct the respondent No.5 & 9 to hand over the
entire records of the society to the
Administrator.
This Hon’ble Court was further pleased to
direct the respondents No.10 to 15 not to
transfer alienate of part with possession.
28.5.1992 This Hon’ble Court was pleased to appoint the
Local Commissioner to prepare a report as to
who are in actual physical possession of 99
Flats and the respondent No.5 was restrained
from interfering in the work of the society and
in any manner dealing with alienating,
transferring, allotting or parting with possession
of any flat forming part of Society Complex.
petitioners to the Flats in the said Society. A
list of unauthorized occupants was also filed
before the Hon’ble High Court.
9.11.1993 The Administrator in pursuance the directions
of this Hon’ble Court prepared a list of bonafide

members of the Society showing the names of
82 persons including the names of the
petitioners.
15.06.1994 The membership of other 16 members out of the
17 as were declared disqualified was restored
by the Registrar of Co-operative Society
20.09.1994 The Financial Commissioner was pleased to
dismiss the Revision petition of the Society in
respect of the restored membership of 16
persons.
July, 1997 The amended memo of parties arraying the said
unauthorized occupants as respondents, as
disclosed during the pendency of the writ
petition was filed along with amended writ
petition.
07.08.1997 The Hon’ble High Court allowed the
application filed by the petitioner to implead the
unauthorized occupants as respondents and
accordingly the amended writ petition is
ordered to be taken on record.
Under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 C.P.C.

for their impleadment as petitioners in the said
writ petition.
Hon’ble High Court and the present petitioners
were allowed to join the proceedings as
petitioners and were directed to file the
amended memo of parties.
28.08.2001 The amended memo of parties arraying the
present petitioners in terms of the order dated
28.08.01 was filed. The matter was fixed for
final hearing and adjourned time to time for one
reason or the other.
12.08.2005 On the date fixed the Society offered 5 Flats to
the petitioners, the Hon’ble High Court by way
of interim order directed that said Flats be given
to those petitioners who were petitioners in the
original petition on payment of Rs.8 lacs to the
Society subject to finalization of actual cost. In
the said order the Hon’ble High Court declined
to pass any order in relation to the present
petitioners on the ground that they joined the
proceedings after 10 years and their claim
suffers from delay and latches, without

considering the fact that the original petition
was filed by a group of persons and the relief
claimed therein squarely covers the interest of
the petitioners as well as other bonafide
members on attaining finality of the writ
petition.
for re-calling/modifying the said order to the
extent that the said observations may be re-
called in respect of the present petitioners.
10.05.2007 The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to appoint
Mr. Arvind Nigam to act as the Court
Commissioner and to examine the record and
also the claims of various claimants in respect
of the Flats of the said Society.
13.08.2007 The Court Commissioner submitted its

petitioners to the Flats in the said Society.
27.11.2009 The said application for review of order dated
12.08.05 came up for hearing and the same has
been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on
the ground that the prayer of the applicant
suffers from delay and latches.

3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
That in the year 1979 the Maitri Nagar Co-operative
Group Housing Society was formed under the
provisions of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act
with a total membership of 99 persons. A peace of
land was allotted vide plot No.29, Sector-9, Rohini,
Delhi for constructions of 99 Flats. That some dispute
had arisen between the members of the Managing
Committee as the then President was doing the affairs
of the Society in arbitrary and illegal manner. The
members of the Society in a group approached the
Registrar Co-operative Societies to conduct the
elections, which had fallen due. On this the Registrar
Co-operative Societies appointed the Election Officer
on 14.01.1988 and directed to conduct the elections
within one month.
[The copy of Order dated 14.01.1988 is

enclosed hereto as ANNEXURE P-1]
That the Registrar also appointed the Election Officer
on 14.01.1988 to conduct the enquiry under Section 55
in respect of constitution, management the complaints
received in the office of the Registrar.

Thereafter, the Assistant Registrar informed the
Society that 27 members were incurring
disqualification in terms of Rule 25 of Delhi Co-
operative Societies Rules, 1973 and the bye-laws of
the Society vide letter dated 24.02.1988.
[The copy of letter dated 24.02.1988 is enclosed

hereto as ANNEXURE P-3]
That on coming to know about the said cessation of
membership, the said 27 members approached the Lt.
Governor by preferring appeal under the provisions of
the Act challenging the said order. The Lt. Governor
was pleased to pass the order dated 01.06.1988 and
restrain the Society from enrolling new members in
place of the said 27 members.

That on 10.08.1988 during the pendency of the said
proceedings a draw of lots of allotment of 69 members
was conducted as the membership of 27 members was
under dispute and 3 members could not complete the
formalities.
[The copies of List of Draw category wise
dated 10.08.1988 are enclosed hereto as
ANNEXURE P-5 (Colly.)]
The Lt. Governor was pleased to allow the Revision
Petitions on 09.12.1988 filed by the said 27 members
and remanded the matter of cessation of said 27
members for reconsideration with proper opportunity
to the members and ordered that status-quo be
maintained in respect of said 27 members until their
dispute is finally adjudicated.

The Registrar re-examined the matter and restored the
membership of 10 persons including the present
petitioners. However, maintained the earlier order of
cessation of membership in respect of remaining 17
members. ANNEXURE P-1
The Registrar superseded the Managing Committee of
the Society and appointed the Administrator.
ANNEXURE P-1
The remaining 17 members, whose membership was
not restored, again approached the Lt. Governor and
their matter was again remanded to the Registrar in
view of the facts and submissions made by them. The
Registrar re-examined the matter afresh and restored
the membership of 16 members out of the said
remaining 17 members.
The Society challenged the said restoration in respect
of the restoration of membership of 10 persons, which
includes the petitioners but the said Revision Petition
were dismissed. ANNEXURE P-1
The Society did not challenge the order passed by the
Lt. Governor in respect of 10 members including the
petitioners, thus the restoration of membership of 10
persons including the petitioners became final.
As the Managing Committee of the Society did not
Administrator appointed by the Registrar of Societies,
despite repeated demands and the President with few
persons started dealing with the affairs of the Society
as if they were the builders and the Flats were owned
by them, a group of persons which includes the

persons whose membership was never ceased as well
as the persons whose membership was ceased but
restored, filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High
Court praying the relief in respect of all the bonafide
members of the Society. ANNEXURE P-1
The Hon’ble High Court repeatedly passed from time
to time the restrain orders dated 16.12.1991 against the
Managing Committee of the Society from alienating,
transferring or dealing with the Flats of the Society and
directed the Managing Committee to handover the
records of the Society to the Administrator but neither
the records were handed over nor the Ex-President of
the Society desist from illegal and arbitrary activities
and keep on handing over the possession to
unauthorized persons for extraneous considerations.

The Hon’ble High Court appointed the Local
Commissioner on 28.05.1992 to inspect the site and to
take over the possession of vacant Flats by putting his
lock.

That the Local Commissioner so appointed visited the
spot on 26.06.1992 and noticed that in addition to the
board of the Society another board by the name of
“Anand Apartments” has been affixed and various
persons were found in unauthorized possession of the
Flats and various Flats were unoccupied but since
there were no doors, the Local Commissioner could
not put his lock except on one Flat.
[The copy of Report of Local Commissioner

dated 26.06.1992 is enclosed hereto as
ANNEXURE P-13]
That a list of members dated 09.11.1993 of
unauthorized occupants was filed before the Hon’ble
High Court. On this, amended memo of parties with
amended writ petition was filed arraying the said
unauthorized occupants as respondents.
[The copy of List dated 09.11.1993 and the

copy of Amended Writ Petition with Amended
Memo of Parties are enclosed hereto as
ANNEXURE P-14 (Colly.)]
The present petitioners moved an application on
14.06.2001 Under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151
C.P.C. for their impleadment as petitioners in the said
writ petition.
[The copy of Application dated 14.06.2001 is
The said application was allowed on 21.08.2001 and
the present petitioners joined the proceedings as
petitioners.

The matter was fixed for final hearing and adjourned
time to time for one reason or the other.
That the Society offered 5 Flats to the petitioners, the
Hon’ble High Court by way of interim order dated
12.08.2005 directed that said Flats be given to those
petitioners who were petitioners in the original petition
on payment of Rs.7 lacs to the Society subject to
finalization of actual cost. In the said order the
Hon’ble High Court declined the present petitioners on
the ground that they joined the proceedings after 10
years and their claim suffers from delay and latches,
without considering the fact that the original petition
was filed by a group of persons and the relief claimed
therein squarely covers the interest of the petitioners as
well as other bonafide members on attaining finality of
the writ petition.

The petitioners moved an application on 04.10.2005
for re-calling/modifying the said order dt.12.08.2005
to the extent that the said observations may be re-
called in respect of the present petitioners.
[The copy of Application dated 04.10.2005 is

Thereafter, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to
appoint the Court Commissioner on 10.05.2007 to
examine the record and also the claims of various
claimants in respect of the Flats of the said Society.

The Court Commissioner submitted its report dated
13.08.2009 for confirming the eligibility and
entitlement of the petitioners to the Flats in the said
Society.
[The copy of Court Commissioner Report dated

13.08.2009 is enclosed hereto as ANNEXURE
P-20]
That the connecting writ petition W.P.(C) 2890 of
1995 wherein the society challenged the restoration of
remaining 16 members, other than the present

petitioners, has been dismissed vide order dated
17.4.2009 and thereby the other 16 persons have also
been declared as bonafide members.
[The copy of Judgment dated 17.04.2009 is

That another writ petition filed by some of the
members vide writ petition No. 5398 of 1997 has been
allowed.
[The copy of Judgment dated 17.04.2009 is

That the said application came up for hearing and the
same has been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court.

(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Smt. Shanta Ajmera & Anr. ..PETITIONERS
Versus
The RegistrarCo-operative Societies

Delhi & Ors. ..RESPONDENTS
CERTIFICATE
Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the
pleadings before the Court below whose orders are challenged and
the other documents relied upon in those proceedings. No
additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken therein or
relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. It is further certified that
the copies of the documents/annexures attached to the Special
Leave Petition are necessary to answer the question of law raised in
the petition or to make out grounds urged in the Special Leave
Petition or to make out grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition
for consideration of this Hon’ble Court. This certificate is given on
this basis of the instructions given by the petitioners/persons
authorized by the petitioners whose affidavit is filed in support of the
S.L.P.”
NEW DELHI FILED BY

DATED: (Mrs. NARESH BAKSHI)
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS

(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Smt. Shanta Ajmera & Anr. ..PETITIONERS
Versus
The RegistrarCo-operative Societies

Delhi & Ors. ..RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Ratan Lal Jhawar S/O Late Shri Panna Lal Ji Jhawar, aged about years,
C/O Shri S.N. Jhawar, 76 State Bank Colony, Near Nanak Piao Gurudwara, Delhi, do hereby
solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That I am the petitioner No.3 in the above noted matter and am fully
conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and is
competent to swear this affidavit on my behalf as well as on behalf
of other petitioners.
2. That the contents of the Synopsis & List of Dates from pages 1 to
__ and the contents of the accompanying Special Leave Petition in
paragraphs _____ to ____ at page ____ to ___ are true and correct
to my knowledge. Para No.____ to ____ are grounds at page
No.____ to ____ and the said all grounds are believed to be true on
advice received. Last Para at page is prayer to this Hon’ble
Court and the same is also true and correct.
3. That the contents of the I.A.s for condonation of delay and for grant
of stay are true and correct to my knowledge.

4. That the Annexures P-1 to P- enclosed with the petition are true
copies of their respective originals.
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this day of 2010, that the contents of
the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief.
DEPONENT
LIST OF ORIGINAL MEMBERS
100. Shri Om Parkash Aggarwal S/O Late Shri Hukam Chand Aggarwal.
109. Shri Gunwant Rai Jain S/O Shri J.R.Jain.
110. Shri V.K.Jain S/O Shri Shyam Lal Jain.
111. Shri Kaushal Aggarwal S/O Shri Ram Pratap Aggarwal.
112. Shri Anil Kumar Aggarwal S/O Shri Ram Kumar.
113. Shri Ajay Bansal S/O Shri Kirori Mal.
114. Shri Gurender Singh S/O Shri Laxman Dass.
115. Shri Manohar Lal S/O Shri Bahadur Chand.
116. Shri Madan Lal Aggarwal S/O Shri Mange Ram.
117. Shri Mahadev Parshad Goyal S/O Shri Radhey Kishan Goyal.
118. Shri Satyam Lal Jain S/O Late Shri S.C.Jain.
119. Shri Vinod Kumar Jain S/O Shri Pawan Kumar Jain.
120. Shri Naval Kishore Goyal S/O Shri Naresh Chand Goyal.
121. Shri Harsh Chandra S/O Shri Kanak Mal Jain.
122. Shri Dharmi Chand Maheshwari S/O Shri Harsh Chand.
123. Smt. Manju Jain S/O Dr. Om Parkash jain.
124. Shri Shyam Lal Jain S/O Shri Ramesh Chand jain.
125. Shri Ashok Kumar Jain S/O Shri Kesho Ram Jain.
126. Shri Sagar Chand S/O Shri Raja Ram.
127. Shri Ved Parkash Mittal S/O Shri Ram Rattan Mittal.
128. Shri M.B.Singh Jain S/O Shri Sita Ram Jain.
129. Shri Munshi Ram Sharma S/O Shri Ram Chand Sharma.
130. Shri Ashok Kumar Jain S/O Lahri Mal Jain.
131. Smt. Sudershan Mali W/O Shri M.S.Mali.
132. Shri R.L.Garg S/O Shri H.S.Garg.
133. Shri Subhash Chand Jain S/O Shri Khem Chand Jain.
134. Shri Mahabir Parshad S/O Shri Tara Chand.
135. Smt. Tara Devi W/O Shri R.K.Vohra.
136. Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma S/O Shri Than Chand Sharma.
137. Smt. Chandrawati Tewari W/O Shri Sughriv Tewari.
138. Smt. Sudershan Kumari W/O Shri Ranvir Singh.
139. Smt. Suma Puri W/O Shri Virender Puri.
140. Shri Jiwan Parkash Kataria S/O Shri Mohan Lal Kataria.
141. Shri Bal Kishan Thagi S/O Shri Anil Tyagi.
142. Shri Naresh Chand jain S/O Shri Munia Mal Jain.
143. Shri Anil Kumar Singhal S/O Shri Jagdish Singhal.
144. Smt. Prem Lata Garg W/O Shri Laxman Das Garg.
145. Shri Tek Chand Jain S/O Shri Chander Bhan Jain.
146. Shri Rai Chand Jain S/O Late Shri Lal Chand Jain.
147. Smt. Sharda Pareekh S/O Shri Ram Gopal Pareekh.
148. Shri Rakesh Kumar Marwaha S/O Shri O.P.Marwah.
149. Shri Niranjan Pal Singh S/O Shri Mohar Singh.
150. Smt. Usha Rani Gupta W/O Shri Madan Lal Gupta.
151. Shri Vinod Aggarwal S/O Shri S.L.Aggarwal.
152. Shri S.P.Mehra S/O Shri Harbans Lal Mehra.
153. Shri Ajit Kumar S/O Shri Lachaman Dass.
154. Shri Jagdish Chand Bansal S/O Shri Behari Lal Bansal.
155. Shri Atul K. Khandelwal S/O Shri R.M.Khandelwal.
156. Shri Navin Kumar Jain S/O Late Shri Ajit Parshad Jain.
157. Shri Mahesh Chand jain S/O Late Shri Radhey Lal.
158. Shri Jainender Kumar Jain S/O Shri M.C.Jain.
159. Shri Jaswant Singh Gupta S/O Shri Prabhu Dyal.
160. Shri Naresh Kumar Gupta S/O Shri Ram Nath Gupta.
161. Shri Virender Kumar Jain S/O Shri K.C.Jain.
162. Shri Kanwar Sain Aggarwal S/O Shri Desh Raj Aggarwal.
163. Shri Mahesh Chand s/O Shri Sagar Chand.
164. Shri Rakesh Aggarwal S/O Shri Mahabir Parshad Aggarwal.
165. Shri Pawan Kumar Jain S/O Shri C.B.Jain.
166. Shri Dinesh Kumar Malhotra S/O Shri Kali Chand Malhotra.
167. Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta S/O Shri Om Parkash Gupta.
168. Smt. Sneh Lata W/O Shri Ram Chander Sharma.
169. Shri Parduman Kumar Jain S/O Shri Sohan Lal Jain.
170. Shri Balwant Singh Jain S/O Shri Man Singh Jain.
171. Shri Anil Kumar S/O Shri Rajendra Prasad.
172. Shri Kulwant Rai Jain.
173. Shri Rich Pal Jain.
174. Shri Ram Pratap Goyal.
175. Shri Shyam Lal Jain.
176. Smt. Shanta Ajmera.
177. Shri N.P.Mantri.
178. Shri Rattan Lal Jhawar.
179. Shri Pawan Kumar Aggarwal.
180. Shri P.P.Bansal.
181. Shri R.K.Kothari.
182. Smt. Kusum Jain
183. Shri R.D.Gupta
184. Shri R.P.Shorewal
185. Smt. Savitri Devi
186. Shri Jai Chand Jain
187. Shri Mehar Chand Jain.
188. Shri Nirmal Kumar Jain.
189. Smt. Savitri Jain.
190. Shri Suresh Chand Goyal.
191. Smt. Krishan Devi.
192. Shri S.D.Aggarwal.
193. Shri Jile Singh Sharma.
194. Ms. Raj Kumari.
195. Ms. Saroj Jain.
196. Shri Vinod Kumar.
197. Smt. Santosh Jain.
198. Shri N.C.Goyal.
NOTE:
(A) The above mentioned 99 persons were the original members out of
which the membership of 27 members i.e. shown at serial number
73 to 99 were illegally ceased by the Assistant Registrar, Mrs.
S.Khurana vide order dt.24.2.1988.
(B) The said 27 members filed an appeal before The Lt. Governor
against the said order passed by The Assistant Registrar
dt.24.2.1988. The Lt. Governor was pleased to set-aside the
impugned order and was further pleased to remand back the matter
to the Registrar for re-examination of the matter.
(C) The Society preferred a review before the Lt. Governor against the
order dt.9.12.1988. The Lt. Governor was pleased to dismissed the
said review vide order dt.18.1.1989.
(D) The Registrar re-examined the matter pertaining to ceasation of

membership of 27 members as shown at serial number 73 to 99
and was pleased to order that the membership of persons at serial
number 73 to 82 was wrongly ceased and restored their
membership and passed the order accordingly. However, the
Registrar declared the 17 members as shown at serial number 83
to 99 were not entitled to continue to be a member of the Society as
they incurred disqualification Under Section 25 of the Co-operative
Society Act.
(E) The Society filed an appeal against the restoration of the

membership of 10 persons as shown at serial number 73 to 82,
before the Lt. Governor. The Lt. Governor was pleased to
dismissed the said appeal vide order dt.25.6.1991.
(F) The said 17 members filed the appeal against the said order before
the Lt. Governor, who was pleased to remand back, the case of 16
members out of those 17 members, once again to the Registrar for
fresh inquiry. Subsequently their membership was restored and the
orders of ceasation of membership by the Registrar vide order
dt.15.6.1994. The Society filed an appeal against the said order
before the Lt. Governor. The Lt. Governor was pleased to dismiss
the said appeal against the restoration. It is pertinent to mention
here that none out of those 17 persons is the petitioner herein.
(G) The persons shown at serial number 23, 39 & 63 who are the
petitioners No.1, 12 & 15 before this Hon’ble Court are the original
members, their membership was never subjected to any ceasation
and their names were put in the draw of lots held on 10.8.1988.
The number of flats allotted to them in the said draw of lots is as
under:
i) Shri Dharmi Chand Maheshwari – Petitioner No.1
ii) Smt. Sudershan Kumari – Petitioner No.12 Allotted Flat
No.602.
iii) Shri Kanwar Sain Aggarwal – Petitioner No.15 Allotted
Flat No.45.
(H) The petitioners No.2,3,4,6 & 10 are the persons whose

membership was ceased by the order dt.24.2.1988 but later on
restored vide order dt.27.9.1989 by the Registrar. Hence, their
names could not be put in the draw of lots held on 10.8.1988
for 69 flats.
(EXTRA ORDINARY CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN RE:

….PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Registrar Co-operative Societies,

Delhi & Others
….RESPONDENTS
1. Shri D.C.Maheshwari,
D-25, C.C.Colony,
Delhi-110 007.

Bazar Sita Ram,
Delhi-110006.
3. Shri R.K.Kothari,
403, Laxmi Bhawan,
72, Nehru Place,
New Delhi.

Sector VIII, Rohini,
Delhi-1100085.


Outer Ring Road,
New Delhi-110041.


New Delhi-110055.



Delhi-110085.
14. Shri V.K.jain,

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110031.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.
….PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Registrar,
Old Court Building,
Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001.

Delhi-110054.

Flat No.29, Sector-IX, Rohini, Delhi,

5. Shri Anand Jain,

Delhi-110085.


Delhi-110052.
8. Smt. Manju Jain,

44, Maitri apartments,
Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.
11. Shri K.C.Aggarwal,

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.
17. Shri G.K.Garg,

through his tenant Shri S.K.Arora,
Delhi-110085.
18. Shri G.K.Sharma,

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Shri Rajesh Gulati,
Delhi-110085.
21. Shri T.K.Gupta,
Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.
26.(a) Smt. Rekha Aggarwal,

26.(b) Master Ashish Aggarwal,
26.(c) Baby Arunima Aggarwal,
ALL RESIDENT OF:

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.
28. Shri B.S.Sarna,

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.
30. Shri H.R.Lal,

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.
34. Shri K.R.Punia,

Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Smt. Bimla Devi,
Delhi-110085.

Delhi-110085.

Shri Rajesh Banga,
Delhi-110085.
….RESPONDENTS
_____________________________________________________
______
CHANDHIOK &
ASSOCIATES
COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONERS
NEW DELHI
DATED: .7.97
SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.
Ref.No.F.47/392/GH/COOP/1078 Dated :
24.2.88
President/Secrtetary,
Maintri Nagar Cooperative G/H Society Ltd.,
Plot No.29, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi-34.
Sug: Ceasation of membership in Maitri

Nagar Cooperative G/H Society Ltd.
With reference to the above noted subject I am directed inform you

that following 27 members are incurring disqualification in term of Rule 25
of Delhi Cooperative Societies rules 1973 and regd. Bye-Laws of the
society.
1. Smt. Kusum Jain M.No. 94B

2. Shri Ram Partap Goel M.No. 63A
3. Smt. Santosh Jain M.No. 35B
4. Shri Ram Parkash Shorewala M.No. 8B
5. Shri Prem Parkash Bansal M.No. 04A
6. Shri Vinod Kumar M.No. 14A
7. Shri Rattan lal Jhawar M.No. 33B
8. Shri Rameshwar Dass Gupta M.No. 62A
9. Shri Suresh Chand Goyal M.No. 17A
10. Smt. Savitri Jain M.No. 6B
11. Smt. Savitri Devi Jain M.No. 9B
12. Shri Kulwant Rai Jain M.No. 10A
13. Smt. Nirmal Kumari Jain M.No. 96B
14. Smt. Krishna Devi M.No. 1A
15. Mrs. Raj Kumari M.No. 97B
16. Smt. Saroj Jain M.No. 98B
17. Shri S.D.Aggarwal M.No. 99B
18. Shri Mehar Chand Jain M.No. 73A
19. Shri Pawan Kumar Aggarwal M.No. 48A
20. Smt. Shanta Ajmera M.No. 69A
21. Shri N.P.Mantri M.No. 70A
22. Shri Jile Singh Sharma M.No. 12C
23. Shri Ram Kishore Khetari M.No. 88A
24. Shri Jai Chand Jain M.No. 60B
25. Shri Rich Pal Jain M.No. 95A
26. Shri Naresh Chand Goel M.No. 30A
S/O Shri Mehtab Chand Jain M.No. 43A
You are requested to do the needful accordingly.
Your’s faithfully,
Sd/-
(Mrs. S.Khurana)
Asst. Registrar
LIST OF MEMBERS OF MAITRI NAGAR COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING
SOCIETY AS FILED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR DT.9.11.1993
83. Shri Om Parkash Aggarwal S/O Late Shri Hukam Chand Aggarwal.
Sd/-9.11.93
(S.P.SEHGAL)
ADMINISTRATOR
GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY
LTD.
IN THE COURT OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR : DELHI.
Cases Nos.49/1988-CA to 61/1988-CA,63/1988-CA to 65/1988-CA,

73/1988-CA, 74/1988-CA, 91/1988-CA to 95/1988-CA and 97/1988-CA,
Rev. Petition U/S 80.
Among.
(1) Richpal Jain Versus Registrar, Coop. Societies

& Anr.
(2) Kulwant Rai Jain Versus - do –
(3) Savitri jain Versus - do –
(4) Saroj Jain Versus - do –
(5) Ram Parkash Versus - do –
(6) Krishna Devi Versus - do –
(7) Sham Lal Versus - do –
(8) Rattan Lal Jhawar Versus - do –
(9) Mehar Chand Versus - do –
(10) Ram Kishore Kothari Versus - do –
(11) Jai Chand Jain Versus - do –
(12) Prem Parkash Bansal Versus - do –
(13) Zile Singh Versus - do –
(14) Savitri Devi Jain Versus - do –
(15) Santosh Jain Versus - do –
(16) Pawan Kumar Aggarwal Versus - do –
(17) N.C.Goyal Versus - do –
(18) Ram Partap Goyal Versus - do –
(19) Surresh Chand Goyal Versus - do –
(20) Shanta Ajmera Versus - do –
(21) Narain Parshad Versus - do –
(22) Vinod Kumar Versus - do –
(23) R.D.Gupta Versus - do –
(24) Nirmal Jain &
others. Versus - do –
Represented by:- Shri R.S.Tomar, Adv.

and Shri Rakesh Munjal, Adv. for
appellants and Shri R.N.Bhardwaj, Adv.
for Society, Shri P.R.Sen Gupta, ARCS
for RCS.
All the above cited cases came up for hearings before us
today. During the course of arguments, the learned counsels
for the respondents raised a point that the present revision
petitions under section 80 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies

Act are not maintainable since the order dated 24.2.1988 being
an administrative order having been passed by the Registrar in
his administrative capacity. On this point, the learned counsels
for the appellants submitted that since this order being contrary
to law deserves to be brushed aside by invoking the provisions
of Section 80 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act since it
has snatched the valuable rights of the appellants who were not
given opportunity of being heard. The learned counsels for the
appellants than read out the ingredients of section 80 of the Act
and said that where no appeal lies, in that case revisional
power under section 80 of the Act warrants to be exercisable by
this Court. The learned counsels for the appellants than
confronted with the import of rule 25 of the Rules and further it
was made clear to them that the order as challenged is an
administrative order. They in reply submitted that this order in
all the cases cannot be deemed to be an administrative order
since there are a number of rulings on this point. Then they
said that there is a Supreme Court ruling on this very specific
point and in case sometimes is given then the same could be
produced. There was no objection on behalf of the
respondents on this point. The learned counsels then made a
request that the impugned order be stayed from execution till

further orders and the society has also decided to enroll new
members in place of the appellants and arrange to refund the
amount, as such it should be restrained from such actions.
There is no rebuttal argument on this point.
Keeping in view the above, it is hereby ordered that the society
should not enroll new members and further restrained from refunding the
amount to the appellants till the next date to be fixed. The impugned order
should not be implemented till next date. This order has been announced
in open court and the parties have been made known about it. Cases
fixed for hearing on 6.7.1988 at 3.30 P.M. There is no need to issue the
present order. This order shall govern all the cases.
Announced. Sd/-
(H.L.KAPUR)
Dt.2.6.1988.
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF:
C.M. NO.______OF 2001

IN
C.W.P. NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
D.C.Maheshwari & Others

….PETITIONERS
VERSUS

& Others
….RESPONDENTS
APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY - RESPONDENT NO.3

FOR ISSUANCE OF DIRECTIONS TO HANDOVER THE PHYSICAL
VACANT POSSESSION OF FLAT NO.602 TO THE PETITIONER
NO.12 - SMT. SUDERSHAN KUMARI.
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the applicant is the Society known as 'Maitri Nagar Co-op. Group
Housing Society/Respondent No.3' and the above named Smt. Sudershan
Kumari is the petitioner No.12 in the above noted writ petition. The writ
petition is pending before this Hon'ble Court.
2. That the petitioner No.12 is a bonafide member of the society and her
membership is uninterrupted and undisputed since the date of her membership
till the date of filing the present application.
3. That the Flat No.602 was allotted to the petitioner No.12 in the draw of
lots held on 10.8.1988 in the presence of the nominees from the office of the
Registrar of Co-op. Societies Delhi and the Delhi Development Authority.
4. That the possession of the flat to the petitioner No.12 could not be handed
over due to non completion of the Society and in the meantime the present writ
petition was filed before this Hon'ble Court and this Hon'ble Court was pleased
to pass the order in C.M.No.4034/92 dt.28.5.1992 whereby this Hon'ble Court

was pleased to appoint the Local Commissioner to ascertain the fact that who
are in actual physical possession of the 99 flats of the Society and it was further
directed that the Local Commissioner will also place his own locks on the flats
which he find unoccupied.
5. That on the last date of hearing the Counsel for the applicant/Society
submitted before this Hon'ble Court to resolved the dispute with the petitioner
and to hand over the possession of the Flat to the petitioner No.12.
6. That the applicant/Society on scrutiny of the record has determined the
final outstanding balance towards the petitioner i.e. a sum of Rs.1,26,650/-
towards the cost of construction etc. The said amount is due in addition to the
amount of Loan due to the petitioner and is payable to DCHFC.
7. That the applicant/Society had issued a letter of demand dt.27.8.2001 vide
letter No.A/53/602/2001 to the petitioner No.12 asking her to make the payment
of the outstanding dues on account of balance of construction money and to
settle the amount of Loan directly with the DCHFC. A copy of the said letter is
enclosed herewith as Annexure 'A'.
8. That the applicant/Society is ready to hand over the physical possession
of the flat No.602 to the petitioner No.12 subject to the payment of the aforesaid
amount to the Society.
9. That in pursuance of the said offer a meeting was held on 16.9.2001 and it
was resolved that the Society will approached this Hon'ble Court for seeking
necessary directions, so that the possession of the flat No.602 may be handed
over to the petitioner No.12. A copy of the said meeting is being enclosed
herewith as Annexure 'B'.
10. That the petitioner No.12 is the absolute owner/allottee of the Flat No.602
and the property is also being accessed for the payment of property tax in the
name of the petitioner No.12. A copy of the property tax bill dt.14.9.2001issued
by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in the name of the petitioner No.12 is
also being enclosed herewith as Annexure 'C'.
11. That the Flat No.602 is lying vacant and the society is ready to handover
the physical possession to the petitioner No.12 but to avoid any further
controversy the present application is being filed for seeking necessary
directions of this Hon'ble Court.
PRAYER:
It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow
the applicant/Society/Respondent No.3 to hand over the physical vacant
possession of Flat No.602 to the petitioner No.12/Smt. Sudershan Kumari
subject to making of the payment of Rs.1,26,650/- to the Society as an
outstanding balance till date.
Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the present case be also passed, in the interest of
justice.
RESPONDENT NO.3
THROUGH
NEW DELHI (JAYA RAKHEJA)

ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.3
235 LAWYERS CHAMBER,
DATED: DELHI HIGH COURT, NEW
DELHI.
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF:
C.M. NO.______OF 2001

IN
C.W.P. NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
D.C.Maheshwari & Others

….PETITIONERS
VERSUS

& Others
….RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Shri Banwari Lal Sharma S/O Shri Mool Chand Sharma
Flat No.16,
Maitri Nagar Co-op. Group Housing Society, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-
110085.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state as
under:
1. That I am the President of the Maitri Nagar Co-op. Group
Housing Society and competent to file the present affidavit.
2. That the contents of the accompanying application for seeking
permission to hand over the physical possession to the petitioner
No.12/Smt. Sudershan Kumar has been drafted by our Counsel as per
instructions of the Society and I have gone through with the contents of
the said application and I say that the contents of the application are
true and correct to my knowledge and on the basis of record of the
society.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this day of September 2001, that the contents
of para No.1 & 2 of the above affidavit are true and correct to my
knowledge.
DEPONENT
15.1.2002
Present : Mr. Anil Aggarwal for the applicants.

Mr. Arjun Pant for the DDA.
Mr. Anil Sapra for Respondents 6 to 8 & 10 to 15.
C.M.No.10675/01 IN C.W.No.3971/1991
Issue fresh notice to the unserved non-applicants for 10th April, 2002.
Dasti as well.
January 15, 2002. Sd/-

MR. ANIL DEV SINGH. J.
MR. MADAN B.LOKUR. J.
R-3 Served through Mr. Jaya Rochecha, Advocate.

R-6 to 8 } Served through Anil Sapra, Advocate.
R-10 to 15 }
R-16,18,20,21} Served through Pradep Nandrajog Advocate.
24,28 to 26 }
R-1,2,4,5,9,17,19,22} Service awaited.
23,25 to 27,37 & 38 }
10.4.2002
Present : Mr. R.P.Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohit Saroha for
Respondent No.3.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Raina, Advocate for Respondents No.6 to 8 &
10 to 16.
Mr. A.S.Chandhiok, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anil Aggarwal, Mr.
Vishal and Mr. Dipankar pandey for applicant.
C.M.No.10675/2001
Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant states that it is not
necessary to serve the unserved respondents as the matter is between the
applicant and the society in so far as this application is concerned.
Learned Counsel appearing for the society states that he will file a reply
with in four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed with in two weeks thereafter.
To come up on 12th August, 2002.
April 10, 2002. Sd/-

**
12.12.91
Present : Mr. A.S.Chandhiok for the petitioners.
C.W.3871/91
At request, adjourned to 16th December 1991.
Sd/-
MR. B.N.KIRPAL. J.
MR. ARUN KUMAR. J.
IN THE MATER OF: C.W.(P) NO. 3871 OF 1991
Shri D.C.Maheshwari ..PETITIONERS
Versus
Registrar Co-op. Society

16.12.91
Present : Mr. A.S.Chandhiok with Mr. Rajeev Mehra for the
petitioners.
C.W.3871/91
Notice to the respondents to show cause why the
petition be not admitted, returnable on 30.1.92. Mr.
S.K.Mahajan accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 &
2. The administrator accepts notice on behalf of R3 Shri
Anand Jain, R5 is present in court and he is served with
the notice of the petition. A copy of the petition be given
to him. Notice issued to the other respondents by
ordinary process as well as dasti for the next date of
hearing.
C.M.6458/91
Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a
document which was filed by the Secretary - custodian of records
of the society with the Registrar Co-op. Society giving a list of
records as on 30th June 1988. The secretary at that time was Shri
Sham Lal Jain, R-9. According to Mr. Mahajan and the
Administrator, full records of the society have not been handed
over to the Administrator. Despite repeated attempts it is only
yesterday that some records were handed over. According to the
list of records which is prepared by the Administrator. No ledger
after 30th June, 1989 has been handed over nor has any cash book
after 30th June, 1989 been given. Comparing the list of records
handed over with the list which was filed by the then secretary of
the society, we find that a number of important records have not
been given for example, cash book for Ist July, 1987 to 30 th June
1988 has not been handed over. Minute books after 30 th June,
1986 have not been given nor is it evident that individual members
files which were 99 in number have been given.
Direction is issued to R-5 and 9 to deliver all the records of
the society at least as per the list already filed by R-9 with the
Registrar of Co-op. Societies, copy of which list has been handed
over to Mr. V.P.Singh and to R-5, with in one week from today.
These respondents should also hand over to the Administrator
other documents including all the cash books and the minute
books. After 30th June, 1986 with in this period of one week. If
no action is taken or if the full records, books, documents etc. are

not handed over as directed by us. Then the R-1&2 shall take
action against the defaulters under the relevant provisions of the
Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, including section 82
thereof.
Pending disposal of the writ petition we direct that R-10 to
15 shall in no way transfer, alienate or part with the possession of
the flats which have been allotted to them and nor will they
encumber the said flats in any way.
The administrator will in the meantime verify and determine
the list of members who were legitimately entitled to be enrolled as
such. The Administrator will also give a report as to who are in
actual physical possession of the 99 flats.
On a question put by us, Shri Anand Jain, who is prresent
in Court says that there was a minute book which was in existence
after June, 1986 and that minute book was with him.
Q. Where has that minute book gone because you were the
President of the Society till May, 1990?
Ans. Despite the fact that the question has been repeated
a number of times, Shri Jain refuses to give an
answer. The aforesaid inability of Shri Jain to
answer the question will be taken in to
consideration by respondents 1 & 2 if and when
they take action under the said Act.
Copy of this order be given dasti to Counsel for the parties
Sd/-
MR. B.N.KIRPAL. J.
MR. ARUN KUMAR. J.
30.1.92
Present : Mr. A.S.Chandhiok for the petitioner.
Mr. S.K.Mahajan for respondents 1 to 3.
Mr. Anil Sapra for R-6 to 8 & 10 to 15.
Mr. A.S.Chadha for R-4.
Mr. R.K.Saini for R-9.
C.W.3871 & C.M.6458/91

Reply affidavits be filed with in six weeks, with copies to Counsel
for the petitioner who may file the rejoinder, if any, with in three
weeks thereafter. To come up on 9th July, 1992.
Interim orders to continue.
If the report is ready, the same be filed before the next date.
Sd/-
MR. B.N.KIRPAL. J.
MR. SANTOSH DUGGAL J.
26.5.92
Present : None.
C.M.3861/92
Notice to Counsel for the non-applicants for 9th July 1992.
Sd/-
MR. D.P.WADHWA. J.
MR. R.L.GUPTA. J.
28.5.92
Present : Mr. A.S.Chandhiok with Mr. Rajiv Mehra for the applicant.
C.M.4034/92
Notice for 9th July, 1992. After hearing Ld. Counsel for the applicant,
we are of the opinion that exparte order should be made. Mr. Arvind Nigam,
Advocate who is present in Court is appointed as Local Commission to visit
Maitri Nagar Co-op. Group Housing Society Ltd. at Plot No.29, Sector 9,
Rohini, Delhi-85 to make a report as to who are in actual physical possession of
99 flats of the society.
9.7.92
Present : Mr. Rajiv Mehra for the petitioners.
Mr. K.G.Bhagat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K.Sangar for R-5.
Mr. Urmil Narang for R-9.
Mr. Arvind Nigam, Local Commissioner in person.
C.M.4034/92
Report of the Local Commissioner Mr. Arvind Nigam has since been
filed. Let copies be given to Ld. Counsel for all the parties. Mr. Nigam has also
filed negatives of the photographs taken by him at the site. These are in the
sealed envelop. These are returned to Mr. Nigam. He will get the necessary
prints taken out and give to Counsel for all the parties. Objections to the report,
if any, shall be filed before the next date of hearing. Adjourned to 14 th
September, 1992.
C.M.4432/92
This is an application by respondent No.5 filed U/S 340 read with
Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. Mr. Bhagat says that present application may be kept
pending.
C.W.3871 & C.M.6458/91, C.M.3861/92

Parties shall complete their respective pleadings. Answer to show cause
notice by respondents who have not so far filed shall be filed within four weeks.
Rejoinder thereto before the date fixed. Similar in the case regarding all
pending applications. A direction be issued to Mr. S.K.Mahajan, Counsel for
Delhi Administrator to file answer to show cause notice on behalf of R1 & 2.
Interim order to continue till further orders. In pursuance to previous order
dated May 28, 1972 Mr. Nigam did lock one flat. The key of that flat shall be
given to the Administrator. Adjourned to 14th September, 1992.
Sd/-
MR. D.P.WADHWA. J.
MR. R.L.GUPTA. J.
14.9.92
Present : Mr. Rajiv Mehra for the petitioner.
Ms. Mukta Sharma for R-4.
Mr. A.K.Singhal for R-5.
C.W.3871 & CMs No.4034,4432,3861/92 & C.M.No.6458/91

Mr. Arvind Nigam Advocate to whom we have appointed Local
Commissioner is present. His report is already on record. He is discharged.
No steps seem to have been taken as per our last order. Adjourned to 18 th
January 1993.
Sd/-
MR. D.P.WADHWA. J.
MR. R.L.GUPTA. J.
18.1.1993
Ms. Mukta Sharma for R-4.
Mr. K.G.Bhagat Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K.Sangal & Mr. Ajay
Khanna for R-5.
C.W.3871/92, CMs.4033,3342,3861/92 & C.M.5458/91

We fine that inspite of pre-amptory order made on 9.7.92 answer to show
cause notice has not been filed by R1 & 2. An Inspector of the Department who
is present says that due to certain Administrative changes in the department this
could not be done. We find that this is hardly a ground. Though we grant one
more opportunity to R1 & 2 for the purpose but only on payment of Rs.500/- as
costs. Parties shall complete their pleadings well before the date fixed. Counter
affidavit, if not filed so far, may be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if
any, before the date fixed.
Parties shall remain bound by the schedule of time. Let the matter be
listed on 9th March, 93.
Sd/-
MR. D.P.WADHWA. J.
MR. VIJENDER JAIN. J.
9.3.93
Present : Mr. A.S.Chandhiok with Mr. Rajiv Mehra for the petitioner.
Mr. K.G.Bhagat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K. Sangal for R-5.
Mr. S.K.Mahajan for Registrar Co-op. Societies.
Ms. Mukta Sharma for D.D.A.
Ms. Urmila Narang for R-9.
C.W.3871/91 & CMs.5458/91, 4033, 3342, 3861/92

Mr. Mahajan may give copies of counter affidavit filed by him to all
other Counsel appearing in the matter who may file their additional affidavits,
if any, before the next date of hearing. It is stated that the revision U/S 80 of
the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 in the matter is listed before the Lt.
Governor tomorrow. We find the revision was filed as far back in 1990 and we
hope the Lt. Governor will be able to decide the revision at an early date. A
copy of this order will be given to Mahajan today itself.
Mr. Chandhiok points out that the order dated 16 th December 1991 has
not so far been complied by the concerned parties/respondents.
My be listed again on 4th May 1993. Parties shall exchange their
respective affidavits/counter affidavits within one week from today with liberty
to the other parties to file further affidavits, if any, before the next date of
hearing. Interim orders to continue.
Sd/-
MR. D.P.WADHWA. J.
4.5.93
Mr. G.K.Bhagat Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K.Sangal for R-5.
Mr. S.K.Mahajan for Registrar Co-operative Societies.
Ms. Urmil Narang for R-9.
C.W.3871/91 & C.Ms. 5458/91, 4033, 3342, 3861/92

It is stated that the Lt. Governor has since heard the revision but has not
yet pronounced the order. Mr. Mahajan says that he does not have the file with
him as the same was taken by the Registrar for presenting the same before the
Lt. Governor. Mr. Mehra says that order dated 16.12.91 has not been complied
with in as much as the counter affidavit has not been filed by the Administrator
of the society. We would adjourn the matter to 20 th July, 1993 in terms of the
last order.
Sd/-
MR. D.P.WADHWA. J.
20.7.93
Present : Mr. Rajeev Mehra for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Sapra for R-6,7,8,10 to 15.
Mr. S.K.Mahajan for Registrar Co-op. Society.
Ms. Mukta Sharma for D.D.A.
C.W.3871/91 & C.Ms.6458/91, 4034, 4432, 3861/92

There is no progress in the matter. Mr. Mahajan says that order of Lt.
Governor is yet to be announced though arguments have been heard. We hope
that Lt. Governor will be able to pronounce the order at an early date.
Meanwhile we direct personal appearance of Shri S.P.Sehgal Assistant
Registrar who is stated to be the Administrator of the society on the Next Date
of Hearing.
To be listed on 7th September 1993. A copy of this order be given to Mr.
Mahajan to be placed before the Lt. Governor.
Sd/-
MR. D.P.WADHWA. J.
7.9.93
Present : Mr. A.S.Chandhiok with Mr. Rajiv Mehra for petitioner.
Mr. K.G.Bhagat, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sunil Magon for R-5.
Mr. S.K.Mahajan for Delhi Administration/R1 & R2.
Mr. Amit Chadha for D.D.A.
C.W.3871/91 & CMs.6458/91, 3861, 4034 & 4432/92

Mr. Mahajan says that Lt. Governor has since decided 17 revisions
regarding cessation of membership of the revision petitioners before him and
out of that in 16 orders have been passed remanding the matters back to the
Registrar of Co-op. Societies and in one case revision has been dismissed. Let
Mr. Mahajan place on record a copy of that order. To be listed again on 22 nd
September, 1993.
We will record the presence of Mr. S.P.Sehgal, Administrator. He shall
appear in person on the next date.
Sd/-
MR. D.P.WADHWA. J.
22.9.93
Mr. Sanjay Yadav and Mr. S.K.Mahajan for R1 & 2.
Mr. K.S.Jaggi for D.D.A.
Mr. K.G.Bhagat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K.Sangal for R-
5.
C.W.3871/91 & C.Ms.6458/91, 3861/92, 4034/92 & 4432/92

Mr. Bhagat says he could not see the orders of the Lt. Governor, which
have been brought on record by Mr. Mahajan.
To be listed again on 10th November, 1993. Mr. Sehgal, Administrator,
who is present in court in person, shall take appropriate action in terms of the
courts orders and report on the next date.
Sd/-
MR. D.P.WADHWA. J.
10.11.93
Present : Mr. A.S.Chandhiok with Mr. Rajiv Mehra for the
petitioner.
Mr. K.G.Bhagat, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. A.K.Sangal for
R-5.
Mr. Amit Chadha for DDA.
C.W.3871/91 & C.Ms.6458/91, 3861, 4034 & 4432/92

Let the matter be listed again on 8.12.93. Meanwhile, an application
C.M.8409/93 has been filed by the petitioner seeking interim directions. Notice.
Counsel for respondents accept notice. Reply, if any, may be filed before the
date fixed.
On the last date of hearing, we had required the presence of Mr.
S.P.Sehgal, Administrator. He is not present in Court. Mr. Bhagat says, he has
since retired. A direction be, therefore, issued to the Registrar Co-operative
Societies to depute an officer vice Mr. Sehgal who shall appear in this court on
the Next Date of Hearing with the records. Mr. Chandhiok says, election was
held by the Administrator but Mr. Bhagats contention is that, that was not legal.
Mr. Saini, who represents R-9, Mr. Shyam Lal Jain, says that his client was
elected as secretary of the society in the elections held by the Administrator. He
needs time to seek instructions.
Let the matter be listed again on 8th December 1993.
Sd/-
MR. D.P.WADHWA. J.
8.12.93
Present : None for the petitioner.
Mr. K.G.Bhagat, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. A.K.Sangal for
R-5.
Mr. K.S.Jaggi for Counsel for R-4/DDA.
Mr. Sunil Magon for R-6 to 8 & 10 to 15.
CWP 3871/91 & C.Ms. 6458/91, 3861, 4034 & 4432/92

Adjourned, on request of Mr. Bhagat, to 18 th January, 1994, as per last
order.
Sd/-
MR. D.P.WADHWA. J.
18.1.94
Mr. P.N.Bhan for Counsel for Respondent No.5.
Mr. R.K.Saini for Respondent No.9.
C.W.3871 & C.Ms. 6458/91, 3861, 4034 & 4432/92
Mr. K.G.Bhagat, who is to argue the matter, is not present today.
Adjourned to 28.2.1994.
Last opportunity is granted to file the reply within 3 weeks. Rejoinder
before the date fixed.
Sd/-
MR. P.K.BAHRI. J.
28.2.94
Mr. P.N.Bhan for the Respondent No.5.
Mr. Amit Chadha for the D.D.A.
Mr. N.Kinra for Respondent No.9.
C.W.P. No. /94
Respondent No.9 present in person, who has been elected secretary of

the Managing Committee of the Society. States having filed a counter on
Saturday last. Let the same be brought on record. To be listed on 28 th April,
1994.
Interim order to continue.
Sd/-
MR. R.C.LAHOTI. J.
MR. ARUN KUMAR. J.
28.4.94
Mr. S.K.Mahajan for Respondents No.1 & 2.
Mr. K.S.Jaggi for Respondent No.4.
Mr. Anil Sapra for Respondents No.6 to 8.
Mr. A.K.Sangal for Respondent No.5.
C.W.P. 3871 & C.Ms. 6458/91, 3861, 4034 & 4432/92
Four weeks time is allowed for filing reply. To be listed on 11 th July,

1994.
Sd/-
MR. R.C.LAHOTI. J.
MR. ARUN KUMAR. J.
11.7.94
Mr. Adesh Kumar Goel for Respondents No.1 & 2.
Mr. K.G.Bhagat Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K.Sangal for
Respondent No.5 - applicant.
C.M.5481/94
Notice to counsel for the non-applicants. Mr. Mehra accepts notice on
behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Sapra on behalf of Respondents No.6 to 8 & 10 to
15, Mr. R.K.Saini on behalf of Respondent No.9 and Mr. Adesh Kumar Goel on
behalf of Respondents No.1 & 2.
Let copies of the application be supplied to the non-applicants. Replies
may be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, within two weeks thereafter.
List on 1st November, 1994.
C.W.3871 & C.Ms. 6458/91, 3861, 4034 & 4432/92

Let pleadings be completed before the Next date. List on Ist November,
1994.
Sd/-
MR. Y.K.SABHARWAL. J.
MR. D.K.JAIN. J.
1.11.94
petitioner.
Ms. Sandhya Goswami, Advocate for Anil Kumar.
Mr. A.K.Sangal with Mr. P.N.Bhan for Respondent No.5.
Mr. Suresh Tripathy for R-6 to 8 & 10 to 15.
C.M. 8128/94
This application has been filed by one Anil Kumar under order 1 rule 10
for being impleaded as a party. Copies of the application are directed to be
given to the petitioners and respondents through their Counsel. Replies may be
filed within three weeks. Rejoinders may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List this application on 2nd February, 1995.
C.W.3871 & C.M.6458/91, C.Ms. 3861, 4034 & 4432/92 & C.M.5481/94
Replies to the applications which have not been filed inspite of

opportunity, be now filed within three weeks. Rejoinders, if any, may be filed
within two weeks thereafter.
List these applications along with writ petition for hearing on 2 nd
February, 1995.
Sd/-
MR. D.K.JAIN. J.
2.2.95
Present : Mr. A.S.Chandhiok with Mr. S.K.Manik Tala for the
petitioner.
Mr. K.G.Bhagat Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K.Sangal for
Respondent No.5.
Mr. Anil Sapra and Mr. J.C.Seth for Respondent.
Ms. Sandhya Goswami for the Respondent.
C.W. 3871/91 & C.Ms. 8128, 5481/94, 6458/91
When this writ petition was filed respondent No.3 The Maitri Nagar Co-
operative Group Housing Society was being administered through an
Administrator. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner as also for Respondent No.9
submit that elections to that Managing Committee of the Society were held
during the pendency of the writ petition and Mr. Shyam Lal Jain Respondent
No.9 was elected as Secretary of the Society. We may, however, note that
according to Mr. K.G.Bhagat, Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.5, the elections
were not legal. That is also the contention of some other respondents as well.
Prima facie, as presently advised, the question of illegality of the elections can
be challenged only in appropriate proceedings. Before, however, issuing
further directions, it is necessary to know as to what is the stand of the society.
Mr. Saini states that he has no instructions to appear for the society since his
client was not the secretary at the time when the petition was filed and when
instructions were given to him to appear for Respondent No.1. Accordingly, we
direct that court notice, without process fee, should issue to Respondent No.3.
Society to clarify its stand on the aspect as to the membership disputes and the
position vis-à-vis flats, by filing appropriate affidavit within 3 weeks from today.
List the petition and all pending applications for further proceedings on
18.4.1995.
Sd/-
MR. K.RAMAMOORTHY. J.
18.4.95
Mr. K.G.Bhagat with Mr. A.K.Sangal for Respondent
No.5.
Mr. J.K.Seth for the respondent.
Mr. Adarsh Goyal for Respondent No.1 & 2.
Mr. Naushal Siddiqui for Respondents No.6 to 8.
Mr. Vipul Maheshwari for the Respondent.
Mr. Kirti Uppal for the Respondent.
C.W.3871/91 & C.Ms. 8128, 5481/94, 6458/91

Counsel for Respondent No.3 - Maitri Nagar Co-operative Group
Housing Society prays for an adjournment to file an affidavit in terms of order
dated 2nd February, 1995. Let the same be filed within four weeks. Copies of
the affidavit shall be supplied to all other Counsel appearing in the case.
List on 25th July 1995, alongwith other pending applications.
Sd/-
MR. RAMA MOORTHY. J.
18.7.95
petitioner.
Mr. Kirti Uppal for Respondent No.3.
Mr. K.G.Bhagat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.N.Bhan for R -
5.
Mr. Adarsh Goyal for Respondents No.1 & 2.
Ms. S.Goswami with Mr. Vipul Maheshwari for the
respondent/applicant.
Mr. Naushad Siddiqui for Respondents No.6 to 8.
C.W. 3871/91 & C.Ms. 8128, 5481/94 and 6458/91
Let the affidavit of the society which is represented by Mr. Uppal be put
up on record with advance copies to all the respondents. It should be done with
in two days.
Let reply to C.M. 5481/94 be filed by those who are respondents to this
application. Needful be done with in one week.
Sd/-
MR. MAHINDER NARAIN. J.
MR. CYRIAC JOSEPH. J.
20.10.95
Present : Mr. Mr. Rajiv Mehra for the petitioner.
Ms. Kapnana K.Tripathi for Respondents No.1 & 2.
Ms. Sangeeta Chandra for Counsel for Respondent No.4
D.D.A.
Mr. P.N.Bhan for R -5.
Mr. R.K.Aggarwal, Advocate.
Mr. Anil Sapra, Advocate.
Mr. R.K.Saini, Advocate for Respondent No.9.
C.W. 3871/91
On behalf of Respondent No.3 affidavit dated 19.7.95 has been filed.
The
Ld. Counsel states that this affidavit has been filed by the Respondent
No.3 in compliance with the order dated 2.2.1995. The Ld. Counsel for
the petitioner points out that this affidavit does not satisfy the
requirement of order dated 2.2.95. We allow six weeks time to the
Respondent No.3 to check up if the affidavit satisfies the requirement of
the order of the court; If it does not, then an additional affidavit must be
filed. If the additional affidavit is not filed and we find that the order of
the Court has not been complied with, then the Respondent No.3 must
be prepared to face the consequences.
C.M. 8128/94
This is an application filed on behalf of one Mr. Anil Aggarwal, an
intervener in the proceedings. It is admitted that Mr. Anil Aggarwal has
expired after the filing of the application. The Ld. Counsel states that yet
another application on behalf of L.Rs has been filed vide diary No.23764
dt.19.10.1995. Let that application be brought on record. Copies of both these
applications shall be delivered by the Counsel to all other parties appearing in
the case. On the next date applications shall come up for hearing; replies, if
any, may be filed in due course.
We find that there are a number of other C.Ms pending for
consideration. Let all the Ld. Counsel appearing in the case inspect the
records. If there are any applications copies where of have not been delivered
to them, they shall ask for the same by delivering letter to the Counsel for the
respective applications.
Pleadings in the applications shall be completed before the appointed
date.
C.M. 8409/93
This application calls for reply from Respondents No.1 & 3 as submitted
by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/applicant. Let him deliver a copy of the
application to the Counsel for Respondents No.1 & 3. Reply before the
appointed date.
To come up for hearing on 27th February, 1996.
Sd/-
MR. R.C.LAHOTI. J.
MR. LOKESHWAR
PRASHAD. J.
27.2.96
petitioner.
Mr. Adarsh Goyal for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Rajesh Shankar for Respondents No.6,7,8 & 10 to 15.
Mr. R.K.Aggarwal for Mr. Anil Aggarwal for C.M.
8128/94 & 1693/96.
C.M. 8128/94
This application filed by Anil Aggarwal (now deceased and represented
by LRs) is allowed as not opposed. The applicants (LRs of late Anil Aggarwal)
are permitted to intervene in the proceedings. However, this permission shall be
without prejudice to the rights of the parties already on record. C.M. disposed
of.
Intervenors are allowed liberty for moving appropriate application
pinpointing a relief which they seek in these proceedings which application
when moved shall be heard and disposed of on merits.
C.W.P. No.3871/91
On 27.2.95 the court had directed Respondent No.3 to file an affidavit.
An affidavit was filed on 19.7.95 which was objected to as being deficient on
behalf of the petitioner. Today, Mr. Kirti Uppal, Counsel for Respondent No.3,
prays for three days time being allowed for filing an additional affidavit. The
prayer is allowed. Let an additional affidavit be filed within three days under
copy to all the Counsel for the respondents appearing in the case.
We make it clear that on expiry of three days, right of Respondent No.3
to file additional affidavit shall stand closed and consequence for non-
compliance with the order of the court shall follow.
C.M. 8409/93
Reply to the application filed by the petitioner was expected to be filed by
Respondents No.1 to 3 in terms of order dated 20.10.95. Counsel for
Respondent No.1 states that Respondent No.1 does not propose to file any reply
as it is not necessary.
Respondent No.3 is allowed one weeks time for filing reply as prayed.
To come up for hearing on 15.5.96.
Sd/-
MR. R.C.LAHOTI. J.
MR. LOKESHWAR
PRASHAD. J.
26.4.96
Mr. R.K.Aggarwal for the applicant in C.M. 3046/96.
C.M. 3046/96 IN C.W. 3871/91

Copies of the application have been delivered to all the Counsel
appearing in the case.
List for hearing on 15.5.96. Reply, if any, be filed in between.
Sd/-
MR. R.C.LAHOTI. J.
MR. S.N.KAPOOR. J.
15.5.96
Present : Mr. Rajiv Mehra for petitioner.
Mr. R.K.Aggarwal for applicant in C.M. 3871/91.
Mr. Sunil Magon for Counsel for Respondents No.6 to
8&10 to 15.
Mr. A.K.Sangal for Respondent No.5.
Mr. Atiquddin for Respondent No.3.
Mr. Sangeeta Chandra for D.D.A.
Mr. Adarsh Goyal for Respondents No.1 & 2.
C.W. 3871/91
On behalf of Respondent No.3 affidavit in compliance with the order
dated 27.2.96 is stated to have been filed. Copies are yet to be delivered to all
the Counsel for the parties which the Ld. Counsel delivers in the Court. Mr.
Rajiv Mehra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the affidavit so filed
by the Respondent No.3 does not still satisfy the requirement of the order of the
Court. It that be so, we expect the Respondent No.3 to once again examine the
affidavit filed by him and file a fresh affidavit if the one now filed is deficient in
any manner whatsoever.
Let the secretary of the society remain present in person on the
appointed date of hearing so that if any information is required at the time of
hearing that can be secured.
It is made clear that the petitioner will be heard and disposed of finally
at this very stage.
C.Ms 8409/93 & 3046-47/96

To come up for hearing on 2nd September, 1996.
Sd/-
MR. R.C.LAHOTI. J.
MR. LOKESHWAR
PRASHAD. J.
2.9.96
Present : Mr. A.S.Chandhiok with Mr. Satinder Singh for the
petitioner.
Mr. Anil Sapra for the respondent.
Mr. R.K.Aggarwal for the applicant in C.M. 3871/91.
C.W. 3871/91
Rule D.B.
Interim order made earlier in the petition shall continue to remain in
operation until further orders.
Counsel for Respondent No.3 undertakes to file a list of the flat-owners
and the persons in occupation with in four weeks time.
To come up for hearing on 10.12.96 subject to overnight part-
heard.
C.M./3046/96
This is an application filed by Anil Aggarwal (now deceased) presently
represented by Smt. Rekha Aggarwal, the widow, prosecuting application in
place of Late Anil Aggarwal. According to the applicant he was in possession
of Flat No.40, but the court commissioner while carrying out survey/inspection
in compliance with the orders of the court put his lock on the flat as it was
found to be unoccupied at the time of inspection. The widow submits that she
being the widow of late Anil Kumar Aggarwal and also without any house of
her own to live-in there is no reason to deprive her of this flat.
As the documents bear out, the applicant is certainly a member of the
society. Receipts have been filed showing payment by the applicant. On
15.6.1990 possession of this flat was delivered to late Anil Aggarwal as is
evident by the documents (Annexure-P annexed with the application page 463
of the paper book). It is not disputed by any of the parties that this applicant
would certainly be entitled to a flat if a draw is held. The only dispute raised by
the petitioner is that Flat No.40 was given by Shri Anand Jain the President of
the Society without there having been a legal draw. Thus the entitlement of this
applicant to one flat is not in dispute and all that can happen at the end of the
hearing is that consequent to a draw to be held this applicant may be required
to shift to another flat which may fall to her lot, as a result of the draw held.
We, therefore deem it appropriate to allow the widow to occupy the flat subject
to an undertaking.
Within a week from today Smt. Rekha Aggarwal will file an undertaking
or affidavit that she would comply with the result of the petition, would not
make any material alteration in the flat, would not claim any equity for
continuing in possession of the flat consequent to her having been allowed
possession of the flat by this interim order, in the event of her being required to
vacate the flat she shall do so within the time appointed by the court, and
during the pendency of the petition she would not would not create any third
party interest nor part with the possession to any body else. All these terms
would be incorporated in the undertaking filed by her.
In view of this order, Smt. Rekha Aggarwal who has already been
allowed to intervene shall now be treated as a party to the petition so as to keep
her bound by the result of the petition. Counsel for the petitioner would file
amended memo of parties before the next date.
Mr. Arvind Nigam, the Court Commissioner would go to the flat No.40
on 12.9.96 at 5.00 P.M. and deliver possession over this flat to the widow Smt.
Rekha Aggarwal after in locking the same.
Let a copy of this order be given Dasti to Counsel for the applicant who
shall bring it to the notice of Shri Arvind Nigam, Advocate the Court
Commissioner.
Mr. Arvind Nigam, Advocate, shall be paid a fee of Rs.500/- to be born
by the applicant, Smt. Rekha Aggarwal for compliance with this order.
C.M. stands disposed of.
Sd/-
MR. R.C.LAHOTI. J.
MR. J.B.GOEL. J.
C.M. NO.________ OF 2005

IN
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
Registrar Co-op. Society & Ors. ..RESPONDENTS
D.O.H.: 26.05.2005
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 CPC FOR DISPOSAL OF THE

APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPLICANT FOR SUBSTITUTION OF
THE L.R’s OF THE PETITIONER NO.2.
1. That the above noted writ petition is pending before this Hon’ble
Court and is fixed for 26.05.2005.
2. That the petitioner No.2/Shri Ram Partap Goel had died leaving
behind the L.R’s namely Smt. Radha Goel (Wife) & Shri Amit Goel
(Son) and the present applicant – Anand Goel, who had filed an
application for substitution before this Hon’ble Court on 23.03.2001
vide Diary No.658. However, there were some objections, which were
removed and the application was re-filed with the Registry on 24.04.2001
vide same diary No.658.

3. That on inspection it has been revealed that though the Registry
had made note as under:
“the objection dt.26.03.2001 have been removed. Now the

application may be registered as CM No._____ of 2001 IN CWP
No.38781 of 1991 and be placed before the Court”.
But due to some inadvertence neither the application was
numbered nor placed before this Hon’ble Court for disposal.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the said application
dt.23.03.2001 filed vide dairy No.658 which is pending for disposal may kindly
be taken up and disposed of and the L.R’s of the petitioner No.2 may kindly be
substituted on records, in the interest of justice.

NO.2
C.M. NO.________ OF 2005

IN
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
D.O.H.: 26.05.2005
INDEX
1. Application U/Sec. 151 1 to 3

CPC for disposal of the
application filed by the
applicant for substitution
of the L.R’s of the
petitioner No.2 along with
affidavit.

NO.2
C.M. NO.________ OF 2005

IN
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Shri D.C.Maheshwari S/O Shri Harak Chand, aged about 63 years,
R/O D-6/9, Rana Partap Bagh, Delhi-110 007.

under:
1. That the deponent is the petitioner No.1 in the above noted case and is
fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present and is competent
to swear this affidavit.
2. That the contents of the accompanying application under Section 151 CPC
for corrections of typing errors has been drafted by our Counsel as per our
instructions and I have gone through with the contents of the said application and
I say that the contents of the application are true and correct to my knowledge.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this day of September 2005, that the contents of

paras No.1 & 2 of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge.
DEPONENT
C.M. NO.________ OF 2005

IN
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Shri R.K.Kothari, S/O Shri K.L. Kothari, aged about 56 years, R/O 9,
Ishwar Colony, Pambari Road, Near Rana Partap Bagh, Delhi-9.

under:
2. That the deponent was present in the Court on 12.08.2005 and as per the
offer of the Society the L.Rs of petitioner No.2 was ordered to be allotted the Flat
No.H-42 (HIG) but due to typing error in the order instead of Flat No.H-42
(HIG), the Flat No.SH-502 (Super HIG) has been ordered to be handed over to the
L.Rs of the petitioner No.2. The said Flat No.502 was ordered to be allotted to
the deponent but in the order instead of Flat No.502, Flat No.704 has been
mentioned. The said Flat No.704 was ordered to be allotted to Shri Prem Parkash
Bansal whose named does not appear in the said order.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this day of August 2005, that the contents of paras
No.1 & 2 of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge.
DEPONENT
C.M. NO.________ OF 2005

IN
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Shri Prem Parkash Bansal S/O Late Shri Kunj Lal, aged about 53,
years, R/O H.No.95, Pocket D-11, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi-85.

under:
I say that the contents of the application are true and correct to our knowledge.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
DEPONENT
C.M. NO.________ OF 2005

IN
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Shri Richpal Jain S/O Shri Fateh Chand Jain, aged about 64 years,
R/O B-504, Meera Bagh, Outer Ring Road, New Delhi-110 041.

under:
I say that the contents of the application are true and correct to our knowledge.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
DEPONENT
C.M. NO.________ OF 2005

IN
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Shri Pawan Kumar Aggarwal S/O Shri Shyam Lal Aggarwal, aged
about ____ years, R/O 46, Ram Nagar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi-110055.

under:
2. That the contents of the accompanying application under Section 151
CPCP for corrections of typing errors has been drafted by my Counsel as per my
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
DEPONENT
C.M. NO.________ OF 2005

IN
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Shri Anand Goel S/O Late Shri Ram Partap Goel, aged about 33
years, R/O 1193, Kucha Pati Ram, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi-110 006.

under:
1. That the deponent is the son of the deceased–Shri Ram Partap Goel-
petitioner No.2 and is one of the L.Rs of the petitioner No.2. The deponent was
present in the Court on 12.08.2005 and as per the offer of the Society the
deponent was ordered to be allotted the Flat No.H-42 (HIG) but due to typing
error in the order instead of Flat No.H-42 (HIG), the Flat No.SH-502 (Super HIG)
has been ordered to be handed over to the deponent being L.Rs of the petitioner
No.2. The said Flat No.502 was ordered to be allotted to Shri R.K.Kothari but in
the order instead of Flat No.502, Flat No.704 has been mentioned. The said Flat
No.704 was ordered to be allotted to Shri Prem Parkash Bansal whose named
does not appear in the said order.
say that the contents of the application are true and correct to my knowledge.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
DEPONENT
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
ORDER
12.08.2005
Present : Mr. S.S.Jain for the appellant.

Mr. R.P.Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Mahajan, Mr.
P.D.Sharma and Mr. Prabhat Ranjan for the respondent.
Mr. Vaibhav Dang for the respondent Nos.7,10, 11,12,13 to 15.
CM NO.6635/2005 with WP(C)NO.3871/1991
We have heard the matter. Initially the petitioner has
To cut short the controversy and without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the parties we have asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as
to who were the members who were not allotted the flats.
Shri D.C.Maheshwari – petitioner No.1, Shri Ram Pratap Goel –
respondent No.2 has died. However, the legal representatives have not been
brought on record. The application is pending. Notice Counsel for the
respondent accepts notice.

The legal representatives as taken on the application be brought on
record in place of petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.3 is Shri R.K.Kothari. Petitioner
No.4 is Shri Prem Parkash Bansal. Petitioner No.6 is Shri Rich Pal Jain.
Petitioner No.10 is shri Pawan Kumar Aggarwal and petitioner No.13 is Shri
Kanwar Sain Aggarwal who is stated to have been allotted Flat No.45.
Learned counsel for the petitioner says that subsequently, an
amended memo of parties was filed. There was, as a matter of fact, another
amended memo of parties filed by the petitioner in July, 1997. In that amended
memo of parties the names of the petitioners were up to serial No.17, as in the
original petition which was filed in the year 1991. It seems that during the
pendency of the petition, another amended memo of parties was filed on 28 th
August, 2001, where the name of petitioner No.8 Smt. Shanta Ahmera, petitioner
No.19 Shri Narayan Prasad Mantri and petitioner No.20 Shri Ratan Lal Jhawar
were incorporated. We do not want to pass any order in relation to these
petitioners who were subsequently brought on record after 10 years of filing of
the original petition which was filed in the year 1991. Their action suffers from
delay and latches and no good cause has been shown in the application as to why
these three petitioners chose to wait for 10 years.
Mr. R.P. Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the Society says
that possession of alt No.601 has been given to Shri D.C. Maheshwari – petitioner
No.1. Shri Maheshwari is present in Court. He says that he has not received the
possession of the aforementioned flat. The Society to explain as to why the
possession of Alt No.601 has not been given to him and if the same is not been
given, the same may be given to him forthwith.
The possession of Flat No.502 be given to the legal representatives
of petitioner No.2. Possession of Flat No.704 be given to Shri R.K.Kothari –

petitioner No.3. The possession of Alt No.703 be given to Shri Richpal Jain –
petitioner No.6. Possession of Flat No.303 be given to Shri Pawan Kumar
Aggarwal – petitioner No.10. Let all the petitioners who have been allotted these
flats, pay to the Society a sum of Rs.8 Lacs after reconciliation of the amount
which has already been paid by the petitioner to the Society. That payment shall
be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, subject to the
final consideration by this Court. The amount shall be paid by the petitioners in
terms of our order passed above within a period of four weeks. Once, the amount
is paid to the Society, the Society will handover forthwith the flats as stated above
to the above petitioners.
In the meanwhile, the Society to calculate the demand in relation to
these flats and the same will be brought on the next date of hearing in Court.
Sd/-
12.08.2005 MS. REKHA SHARMA. J.
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
ORDER
18.08.2005
Present : Mr. Chetan Sharma, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. S.S. Mishra for the applicant.
CM 10111/2005 in WP(C) No.3871/91
This is an application under Order 1 Rule read with Section 151
CPC for impleadment on behalf of one Rajesh Banga.
Issue notice for the service of non-applicants, on filing of process
fee by ordinary process as well as by regd. AD cover, returnable on 26.10.2005,
the date already fixed.
To our mind once the applicant is claiming any rights under
respondent no.38 and respondent no.38 already being a party in the matter, this
application would not lie. However, in view of the circumstances explained by
Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, with regard to the
operation conducted on the wife of the applicant, we direct that if the applicant is
in possession of Flat No.601, maitri Apartments, he shall not be dispossessed till
the next date of hearing and to that extent we modify our order dated 12.8.2005.
Dasti.
August 18, 2005. Sd/-

Mr.VIJENDER JAIN. J.
Ms. REKHA RANI. J.
C.M. NO.________ OF 2005
IN
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Shri D.C.Maheshwari & Ors. ..PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS
Versus
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 CPC ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONERS NO.2,3 & 4 FOR THE CORRECTION OF THE
TYPING ERRORS IN THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2005.
1. That the applicants i.e. the L.R’s of Late Shri Ram Partap Goel, Mr. R.K.
Kothari and Mr. Prem Parkash Bansal are the petitioners No.2,3 & 4
respectively in the above mentioned writ petition. The said writ petition is
pending before this Hon’ble Court and is now fixed for 26.10.2005 for
further proceedings.
2. That on 12.08.2005, i.e. the previous date of hearing, the Society had
offered to handover the possession to some of the petitioners in the
following manner:-
(i) The petitioner No.1-D.C. Maheshwari–Flat No.601.
(ii) The L.R’s of the petitioner No.2/Late Shri Ram Partap Goel-Flat
No.42.
(iii)The petitioner No.3-Shri R.K. Kothari–Flat No.502.
(iv) The petitioner No.4-Sh. Prem Parkash Bansal-Flat No.704.
(v) The petitioner No.6-Sh. Rich Pal Jain-Flat No.703.

(vi) The petitioner No.10-Shri Pawan Kumar Aggarwal-Flat No.303.
3. That on the basis of the aforesaid offer of the Society to handover the
possession of the Flats to the aforesaid petitioners, this Hon’ble Court was
pleased to order accordingly. This Hon’ble Court was also pleased to
direct that all the petitioners who have been allotted these flats paid to the
Society a sum of Rupees 8 Lacs after reconciliation of the amount, which
has already been paid by the petitioners to the Society. The payment shall
be without prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties, subject to
the final consideration by this Hon’ble Court. It was further ordered that
the amount shall be paid by the petitioners in the terms of order of this
Hon’ble Court within a period of 4 weeks. It was further ordered that
once, the amount is paid to the society the Society will handover forthwith
the Flats as stated above to the above petitioners.
4. That in the terms of the aforesaid orders the petitioners after adjusting the
amount, as per the books accounts of the Society, being already deposited,
paid the balance amount as under:-
(a) The petitioner No.1/D.C.Maheshwari has paid a sum of
Rs.6,85,000/- vide cheque No.935100 dt.03.09.05 drawn upon
Bank of Baroda, Darya Ganj, New Delhi.
(b) The petitioner No.6/Rich Pal Jain has paid a sum of Rs.7,15,000/-
vide cheque No.157087 dt.26.8.05 drawn upon State Bank of
India, Meera Bagh Branch, New Delhi.
(c) The petitioner No.10/Pawan Kumar Bansal has paid a sum of
Rs.7,15,000/- vide DD No.537438 dt.02.09.2005 payable at
Oriental Bank of Commerce, Service Branch, New Delhi.

The Society has accepted the said amount from the above mentioned
petitioners No.1,6 & 10 as there was no error in respect of Flat Nos. allotted to
them, as offered by the Society.
5. That the petitioner No.2/L.R’s of deceased Ram Partap Goel, petitioner
No.3/Shri R.K. Kothari and the petitioner No.4/Shri Prem Parkash Bansal
have also offered the amount to the Society but the society refused to
accept on the ground that their Flats No. as ordered by this Hon’ble Court
are not correctly mentioned in the orders dt.12.08.2005 & the society will
accept the amount only if the typing errors in the said order are get
corrected. The details of the amount as offered by the petitioners No.2,3
& 4 are as under:
a) That the L.R’s of the petitioner No.2 offered to the Society a total
sum of Rs.7,15,000/- by way of the three pay orders/banker’s
cheques i.e. (i) No.887722 dt.03.09.05 for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-
(ii) No.887723 dt.03.09.05 for a sum of Rs.2,40,000/-, (iii)
No.887724 dt.03.09.05 for a sum of Rs.2,35,000/- all banker’s
cheque issued by State Bank of Indore, Bahadur Garh (a member
bank of the Delhi Clearing House) the photocopy of said pay
orders/banker’s cheque are being enclosed hereto as Annexure
‘A’.
b) That the petitioner No.3/Shri R.K.Kothari offered the banker’s
cheque/pay order to the Society vide Banker’s Cheque for a sum of
Rs.7,30,000/- vide banker’s cheque No.033696 dt.03.09.2005
issued by Allahabad Bank, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi.
A copy of the same is being enclosed hereto as Annexure ‘B’.

c) That the petitioner No.4/Shri Prem Parkash Bansal offered to the
Society the banker’s cheque/pay order for a sum of Rs.7,15,000/-
vide pay order No.001067 dt.01.09.2005 issued by Bank of India,
Rohini (C&P) Branch, New Delhi. A copy of the same is being
enclosed hereto as Annexure ‘C’.
6. That as per the oral orders passed by this Hon’ble Court the L.R’s of the
petitioner No.2 were ordered to be handover the Flat No.42 (HIG) but
instead of the Flat No.42 in the order Flat No.502 (Super HIG). The
petitioner No.3 was ordered to be allotted Flat No.502, whereas in the
order it appears as Flat No.704. The petitioner No.4 was ordered to be
allotted Flat No.704, though his name is appearing in the order but Flat
number has not been mentioned.
7. That the applicants, in pursuance of the orders passed by this Hon’ble
Court, tendered the amount to the Society but the Society has refused to
accept the same, as the Flat Numbers in respect of the applicants are not in
consonance with the oral order as passed by this Hon’ble Court, due to
some typing error.
8. That the typing errors in the order passed by this Hon’ble Court vide order
dt.12.08.2005 need to be corrected, so that the amount to be paid by the
applicants, in pursuance of the orders may be accepted by the Society and
accordingly the possession of the respective Flats be handed over to the
applicants at the earliest.

PRAYER
It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to order the necessary corrections in respect of Flat Nos. of the applicant
i.e. the L.R’s of the petitioner No.2 be ordered to be given Flat No.42 (HIG)
instead of Flat No.502, the petitioner No.3/Sh. R.K. Kothari be ordered to be
handed over the Flat No.502 and the petitioner No.4/Shri Prem Parkash Bansal be
given the Flat No.704, in the interest of justice.
Any other order(s) or relief(s), which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the present case, be also passed in favour of the
applicants.

ADVOCATES FOR THE
APPLICANTS/
ANIL AGGARWAL & CO.
C.M. NO.________ OF 2005

IN
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
To
The Registrar,
High Court of Delhi
At New Delhi.
Sir,
The accompanying application may kindly be treated as urgent one the
grounds of urgency are:
“That the present application is for correction of the
typing errors in the order dated 12.08.05.”

ADVOCATES FOR THE
APPLICANTS/
ANIL AGGARWAL & CO.
C.M. NO.________ OF 2005

IN
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
LETTER OF MOTION
TAKE NOTICE that the accompanying C.M.No._______ of 2005 IN
WP(C) No.3871 of 1991 will be listed before Court on ______
September 2005 at 10.30 O’Clock in the forenoon, or so soon thereafter
as may be convenient to the Court.

ADVOCATES FOR THE
APPLICANTS/
ANIL AGGARWAL & CO.
To
The President/Secretary,
Maitri Nagar Co-op. Group
Plot-29, Sector-9,
Rohini, Delhi-85.
C.M. NO.________ OF 2005

IN
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus
D.O.H.: 26.10.2005
INDEX
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Notice of Motion.
2. Urgent Application.
3. Application U/S 151 CPC

for the correction of
the typing errors in the
Order dt.12.08.05 passed
By H.M.J. Vijender Jain &
Ms. Rekha Sharma, along with
affidavits.
4. ANNEXURE ‘A’
Photocopy of the Pay orders/
Banker’s Cheque for total sum
of Rs.7,15,000/- offered to the
Society by the petitioner No.2.
5. ANNEXURE ‘B’
Photocopy of the Pay order/
Banker Cheque for total sum
Of Rs.7,30,000/- offered to the
6. ANNEXURE ‘C’
Photocopy of the Pay order/
Banker Cheque for total sum
Of Rs.7,15,000/- offered to the
7. Proof Service.
-------------------------------------------------------
ADVOCATES FOR THE
APPLICANTS/
ANIL AGGARWAL & CO.
C.M. NO.________ OF 2005

IN
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Smt. Shanta Ajmera W/O Sh. B.L.Ajmera,


3. Shri Rattan Lal Jhawar,

S/O Late Shri Panna Lal ji Jhawar,
C/O Shri S.N.Jhawar,
76, State Bank Colony,
Delhi.
..APPLICANTS
Versus
The Registrar Co-op. Societies & Ors.
..NON-APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 CPC FOR RECALLING

OR MODIFYING THE PART OF THE ORDERS DATED
12.08.2005 TO THE EXTENT IT IS PERTAINING TO THE
APPLICANTS – PETITIONERS NO.18, 19 & 20.
1. That the applicants are the petitioner No.18 – Smt.
Shanta Ajmera, petitioner No.19 – Shri Narayan Parshad Mantri &
petitioner No.20 – Shri Rattan Lal Jhawar in the above noted case.
The writ petition mentioned above is pending before this Hon’ble
Court and is now fixed for 26.10.2005.
2. That on the last date of hearing i.e. dt.12.08.2005, this
Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass the following orders:
“We have heard the matter. Initially the petitioner has

To cut short the controversy and without prejudice to the rights

and contentions of the parties we have asked the learned counsel
for the petitioner as to who were the members who were not
allotted the flats.
Shri D.C.Maheshwari – petitioner No.1, Shri Ram Pratap Goel –

respondent No.2 has died. However, the legal representatives
have not been brought on record. The application is pending.
Notice Counsel for the respondent accepts notice.
The legal representatives as taken on the application be brought

on record in place of petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.3 is Shri
R.K.Kothari. Petitioner No.4 is Shri Prem Parkash Bansal.
Petitioner No.6 is Shri Rich Pal Jain. Petitioner No.10 is shri
Pawan Kumar Aggarwal and petitioner No.13 is Shri Kanwar Sain
Aggarwal who is stated to have been allotted Flat No.45.
Learned counsel for the petitioner says that subsequently, an

amended memo of parties was filed. There was, as a matter of
fact, another amended memo of parties filed by the petitioner in
July, 1997. In that amended memo of parties the names of the
petitioners were up to serial No.17, as in the original petition
which was filed in the year 1991. It seems that during the
pendency of the petition, another amended memo of parties was
filed on 28th August, 2001, where the name of petitioner No.8 Smt.
Shanta Ahmera, petitioner No.19 Shri Narayan Prasad Mantri and
petitioner No.20 Shri Ratan Lal Jhawar were incorporated. We do
not want to pass any order in relation to these petitioners who
were subsequently brought on record after 10 years of filing of the
original petition which was filed in the year 1991. Their action
suffers from delay and latches and no good cause has been shown
in the application as to why these three petitioners chose to wait
for 10 years.
Mr. R.P. Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the

Society says that possession of alt No.601 has been given
to Shri D.C. Maheshwari – petitioner No.1. Shri
Maheshwari is present in Court. He says that he has not
received the possession of the aforementioned flat. The
Society to explain as to why the possession of Alt No.601
has not been given to him and if the same is not been
given, the same may be given to him forthwith.
The possession of Flat No.502 be given to the legal representatives

of petitioner No.2. Possession of Flat No.704 be given to Shri
R.K.Kothari – petitioner No.3. The possession of Alt No.703 be
given to Shri Richpal Jain – petitioner No.6. Possession of Flat
No.303 be given to Shri Pawan Kumar Aggarwal – petitioner
No.10. Let all the petitioners who have been allotted these flats,
pay to the Society a sum of Rs.8 Lacs after reconciliation of the
amount which has already been paid by the petitioner to the
Society. That payment shall be without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the parties, subject to the final consideration by this
Court. The amount shall be paid by the petitioners in terms of our
order passed above within a period of four weeks. Once, the
amount is paid to the Society, the Society will handover forthwith
the flats as stated above to the above petitioners.
In the meanwhile, the Society to calculate the demand in

relation to these flats and the same will be brought on the
next date of hearing in Court.
Renotify on 26th October, 2005.”
3. That the applicants/petitioners No.18, 19 & 20 are the
bonafide members of the Society. The Society was formed in 1979
and was registered with a total membership of 99 persons, which
includes the present applicants/petitioners. In the year 1982-83 a

piece of land was allotted i.e. Plot No.29, Sector-9, Rohini for
construction of 99 Flats.
4. That on 21.12.1986, election of the Society were held
and the respondent No.5/Mr. Anand Jain was elected as President.
5. That on 20.12.1987, a GBM was held as the respondent
No.5/Mr. Anand Jain was functioning in arbitrary manner and
considering the said fact it was resolved to hold fresh elections on 7 th
January 1988. Immediately thereafter, Mr. Anand Jain removed all
the records pertaining to Society and claimed that the then Secretary
Mr. R.P.Jain had been suspended.
6. That on 7th January 1988, upon the representation of 20
members of the Society the Registrar of the Societies, Delhi was
pleased to pass the orders:
(i) The elections of the society which had fallen
due would be conducted by the Department.
(ii) That the Bank Operations of the Society be
temporarily stopped, as to ensure that there would be no
manipulation or tampering of the funds of the society.
Accordingly, the Assistant Registrar (GH) Co-op.
Societies appointed Shri S.K.Panchal as election officer
to conduct the elections of the Society vide his order
dt.12.01.1988.
7. That on 14.01.1988, all of a sudden the Assistant
Registrar (GH) Co-op. Societies revoke the earlier orders
dt.07.01.1988 and 12.01.1988, and appointed Shri P.C.Kathuria as
Election Officer to hold the elections within one month and also by a
separate order of even date appointed the enquiry officer under
Section 55 of The Delhi Cooperative Society Act, 1972.
8. That vide letter dt.24.02.1988 the then Assistant
Registrar informed the Society that the 27 members were incurring
disqualification in terms of Rule 25 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies
Rules 1973 and for that the Society was requested to do the needful.
The names of the present applicants were also figured in the said list.
However, neither any show-cause notice was issued to the applicants
nor any proceedings were initiated against the said persons including
applicants.
9. That when the applicants came to know alleged ceasation
of membership the applicants as well as other persons filed the
revision against the impugned order dt.24.02.1988 before the
Appropriate Authority i.e. The Lieutenant Governor, Delhi. The Lt.
Governor vide order dt.01.06.1988 was pleased to order that:
“Keeping in view the above, it is hereby ordered that the
society should not enroll new members and further
restrained from refunding the amount to the appellants

till the next date to be fixed. The impugned order
should not be implemented till next date. This order
has been announced in open court and the parties have
been made known about it.”
A copy of the said order is enclosed hereto as Annexure
‘A’.
10. That the revision petitions filed by the applicants as well
as other persons were finally disposed of by the Lt. Governor vide
order dt.09.12.1988. In the said order the Lt. Governor was pleased to
order that:
“(i) That the petitioners should make
appearance before the Registrar for the purpose
of defending their cases on 27.12.1988 at 11 A.M.
(ii) That the Registrar shall decide upon
the issue under rule 25 of the Rules after proper
hearing to the concerned persons by the middle of
January, 1988. He should also examine the
records of the society and to take appropriate

action in terms of the provisions of the Act and
the Rules.
(iii)That the registrar should also examine
the position and status of rest of the members and
report in this behalf be submitted to me
separately.
(iv) Status quo be maintained regarding
the position and status of the petitioners and
other like persons till the dispute is finally
adjudicated upon by the Registrar.”
A copy of the said order is being enclosed herewith as
Annexure ‘B’.
11. That the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Delhi after
conducting the enquiry restored the membership of 10 members
including the present applicants vide order dt.27.09.1989.
A copy of the said order is being enclosed hereto as Annexure ‘C’.

12. That on 10.08.1988, though there were total 99 members
but as the membership of 27 members was under dispute, the draw of
lots was to be conducted in respect of remaining 72 members but due
to some reasons it was conducted only for 69 members. The
petitioners No.1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 were out of
those 72 members whose names were put in the said draw of lots and
were allotted the Flats in the draw of lots held on 10.08.1988.
13. That though the membership of 10 members including
the petitioners No.2,3,4,6,10,18,19 & 20 were restored and were
awaiting for draw of lots since 27.09.1989, the day their membership
was restored. That despite the fact that the membership of 10 persons
was restored by the Registrar, the respondent No.5 did not allow these
member to participate in the GBM held on 31.12.1989. The entire
affairs of the Society were contrary to the Rules and the interest of the
members of the Society, the Registrar in exercise of Powers Under
Section 32(1)(5) remove the Managing Committee vide order
dt.30.05.1990 and appointed Shri K.J.R. Burman as Administrator.
A copy of the order dt.30.05.1990 is being enclosed hereto as
Annexure ‘D’.
14. That the respondent No.5/Anand Jain being Ex-President
of the Executive Committee of the Society did not allow the said
Administrator Mr. K.J.R.Burman to function and also not handed over
the records of the Society. In such circumstances vide order
dt.13.08.1991 the Joint Registrar (Group Housing) extended the
period of supersession of the Society until 30.11.1991 and in place of
earlier Administrator Mr. K.J.R. Burman, the New Administrator Mr.
A.D.Ahuja was appointed vide letter dt.13.08.1991. The respondent
No.5 did not allowed even the New Administrator to have access to
the record of the Society.
15. That due to the aforementioned reasons all the members
of the Society, irrespective of the fact whether they were allotted the
Flats in the draw of lots held on 10.08.1988 or their names were out of
the 10 members whose membership was restored decided to file the
present writ petition as the respondent No.5/Mr. Anand Jain was
working like a builder and had put a sign board in the premises of the
Society as “ANAND APARTMENTS” and was also trying to
handover the possession to some outsiders for some extraneous
considerations. Hence, the present writ petition being a representative
petition for all the members concerned.
16. That the present writ petition came up for hearing on
16.12.1991 and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to issue notice to the
respondents and also made certain observations in respect of the
records not handed over to the Administrator by the respondents No.5
& 9 and directed them to handover the entire record to the
Administrator.
A copy of the said order is being enclosed hereto for
ready reference as Annexure ‘E’.
17. That despite the orders of the Court directing thereby to
the respondents No.5 & 9, to handover the entire records to the
Administrator, the records were not handed over and on the other
hand the respondent No.5 with the help of certain other persons
illegally continue to handover the possession of the Flats to the
persons other than the members eligible for the same.
18. That on 28.05.1992, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to
appoint Mr. Arvind Nigam (Advocate) as a Local Commissioner to
visit the site and to report as to who are in actual physical possession
of 99 Flats of the Society and also to place his own locks on the flats
which he finds unoccupied. In the said order this Hon’ble Court was
also pleased to restrain the respondent No.5 from in any manner
interfering in the work of the Society or in the manner dealing with
alienating transferring, allotting or parting with possession of any flat
forming part of the societies complex.

A copy of the order is being enclosed herewith as
Annexure ‘F’.
19. That in pursuance of the orders of this Hon’ble Court Mr.
Arvind Nigam (Advocate) the Local Commissioner inspected the site
on 13.06.1992, took the photographs of the Flats and submitted his
report dt.26.06.1992. The relevant Para 5 & 6 of the report is
reproduced here for ready reference as under:
“5. That I had requested the photographer to take
photographs of the various sign boards of the society
inside its premises on the main gate as also of the
unoccupied/vacant/locked and unfinished flats of the
Society. Consequently photographs were taken of the
various sign boards, name boards of the society as also
of flat Nos.2,13,14,15,17,19,28,30,33,36,38,45,50,54,55,
303,403,502,601,602,603,704,703 & 705.
A perusal of the photographs of the sign boards
of the Society indicate that the society is also being held
out in the name of Anand Apartment which name is
prominently painted on the premises. These

photographs of the name boards of the Society are from
30 to 42.
6. A Scrutiny of the flats reveals that flat numbers
and names had been painted in black paint on all the
flats recently except flat Nos.703 & 705 where marking
were in green paint and some other flats for instance
15, 303 where no name were printed. The detailed
factual position from the site inspect of the flats is
contained in Annexure-IV annexed hereto along with
the photographs. This annexure indicates the flat
number, the name that has been painted near the
entrance of the flat and the remarks of inspection. The
discrepancy between the name painted at the entrance
and the name on the sign board is contained in
Annexure-V.
Co-operative Group Housing society photographs of
which have been annexed herein before Flat
Nos.1,4,17,18,30,33,36,38,41,45,50,54,55,403,602 & 605
have not yet been allotted nor occupied and their

possession is with the Society. However, in another
sign board of Anand Apartment names appear against
the said flats.
20. That on 09.11.1993, the Administrator in pursuance of
the directions of this Hon’ble Court prepared a list of bonafide
members of the Society showing the names of 82 persons. The
strength of the membership was also same as per the auditors report.
The names of the applicants were also appearing in the said list.
A copy of the said list is being enclosed hereto as Annexure ‘G’.
21. That though the present writ petition was signed by only
17 members but the said petition was filed as a representative petition
for all the bonafide members including the present applicants. In the
year 1997, it was pointed out that those who are in illegal occupation
of the Flats be also made the respondents, so that appropriate orders
for their evictions may be passed in the present writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition was suitably amended and the memo of
parties was also amended with the permission of the Court and all
those persons who were known as unauthorized occupant were made

the respondents and thus the amended memo of parties was filed in
1997.
22. That the prayer in the present writ petition is as under:
“(1) An appropriate writ, order, or direction to
the Registrar Co-operative Societies to get the accounts
of the society audited by an independent auditor.
(2) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction,
including a writ of mandamus, directing the Registrar
Co-operative Societies to ensure elections to the
managing committee of the respondent No.3 Society are
held in accordance with the rules of the said society and
Bye-Laws under the Co-operative Societies Act and
within the time framed prescribed therein or the Act.
(3) A writ of mandamus commanding the
respondents,, namely, Registrar Co-operative Societies
and Delhi Development Authority to hold fresh draw of
lots with respect to the entire remaining 30 flats (earlier
draw of lots have only been confined to 69 flats).

(4) Direct and cause to direct the Registrar and
respondent No.3 Society to handover the possession of
the said flats to the members successful in the draw of
lots.
(5) An appropriate writ, order or direction,
including a writ of certiorari quashing the alleged
membership or alleged allotment of flats by Mr. Anand
Jain or any one else with a direction to respondents 10 to
38 and/or any one of them to handover the possession to
the successful members in the draw to be held by DDA.
(6) An appropriate writ order or direction
respondent No.10 to 38 to handover the vacant and
physical possession of the flats in their illegal possession
to the receiver appointed by this Hon’ble Court or to a
Local Commissioner appointed by this Hon’ble Court
who, in turn, may handover the possession as per draw of
lots.
(7) A writ of prohibition restraining
respondents No.10 to 38 their agents, servants and/or

anyone claiming through them from transferring,
alienating or parting with possession of from
encumbering the flats in any manner anywise.
(8) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction
including a writ of mandamus commending respondent
No.1 the Registrar Co-operative Societies, its officers
and agents to get the complaint filed before the
Metropolitan Magistrate restored and/or to prosecute the
same to ultimate conclusion and to take all steps that are
necessary in relation to respondent No.3 as are
warranted by the provisions of the Societies Act, the
Rules framed thereunder and/or the directions as issued
by this Hon’ble Court from time to time.
Such other writs/orders and/or directions as this
Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of
justice may also be passed.”
23. That though the present applicants/petitioners No.18,19,
& 20 were not specifically named as petitioners and they moved the
application for their impleadment as petitioners in the year 2001

because the respondent - Society started misleading this Hon’ble
Court that there were only few petitioners and to them they are ready
to accommodate by handing over the possession of the flat as if the
present petition was only filed by claiming the relief of possession of
the flat by the petitioners. It is pertinent to point out here that such
persons who are not even the bonafide members of the society are
controlling the Society/respondent No.3. This Hon’ble Court on
21.08.2001 allowed the application of the applicants for their
impleadment as petitioners and therefore the second amended memo
of parties was filed in thereafter.
24. That if this Hon’ble Court will not be pleased to recall
the part of the order dt.12.08.2005 pertaining to the applicants, the
applicants/ petitioners No.18,19 & 20 who are entitled to get the
possession of flat being bonafide member of the Society will not only
be denied for their legitimate right but on the other hand, the
respondents who are in unauthorized and illegal occupation of the flat
despite restrain orders by this Court shall enjoy the benefits for their
illegal acts and deeds.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may graciously be pleased to recall or modify the order dt.12.08.2005

so far as it is pertaining to the applicants/petitioners No.18,19 & 20, in
the interest of justice.
Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present
case, be also passed.

ADVOCATES FOR THE
APPLICANTS/
PETITIONERS NO.18,19 & 20
ANIL AGGARWAL & CO.
DATED: 04.10.2005 TIS HAZARI, DELHI-54.
C.M. NO.________ OF 2005

IN
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
To
The Registrar,
High Court of Delhi
At New Delhi.
Sir,
“That the present application is for the
re-calling/modification of the order dated 12.08.05.”

ADVOCATES FOR THE
APPLICANTS/
ANIL AGGARWAL & CO.
C.M. NO.________ OF 2005

IN
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
LETTER OF MOTION
WP(C) No.3871 of 1991 will be listed before Court on ______
September 2005 at 10.30 O’Clock in the forenoon, or so soon thereafter
as may be convenient to the Court.

ADVOCATES FOR THE
APPLICANTS/
ANIL AGGARWAL & CO.
To
The President/Secretary,
Maitri Nagar Co-op. Group
Plot-29, Sector-9,
Rohini, Delhi-85.
C.M. NO.________ OF 2005

IN
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Smt. Shanta Ajmera W/O Shri B.L.Ajmera, aged about years, R/O
C/O Shri P.L.Ajmera, 27, Chitrakoot Apartments, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi-
110032.

under:
CPCP for recalling/modification of the order dt.12.08.2005 has been drafted by
my Counsel as per my instructions and I have gone through with the contents of
the said application and I say that the contents of the application are true and
correct to my knowledge.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
DEPONENT
C.M. NO.________ OF 2005

IN
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Shri Narayan Parshad Mantri S/O Late Shri D.L.Mantri, aged about
years, C/O Shri P.L.Ajmera, 27, Chitrakoot Apartments, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi-
110032.

under:
2. That the contents of the accompanying application under
Section 151 CPCP for recalling/modification of the order
dt.12.08.2005 has been drafted by my Counsel as per my instructions
and I have gone through with the contents of the said application and I
say that the contents of the application are true and correct to my
knowledge.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
DEPONENT
C.M. NO.________ OF 2005

IN
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Shri Rattan Lal Jhawar S/O Late Shri Panna Lal Jhawar, aged about
years, C/O Shri S.N.Jhawar, 76, State Bank Colony, Near Nanak Piao Gurudwara,
Delhi.

under:
CPCP for recalling/modification of the order dt.12.08.2005 has been drafted by
my Counsel as per my instructions and I have gone through with the contents of
the said application and I say that the contents of the application are true and
correct to my knowledge.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
DEPONENT
C.M. NO. 11482 OF 2005

IN
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
Affidavit of Shri Richpal Jain S/O Shri Fateh Chand Jain, aged about 64 years,
R/O B-504, Meera Bagh, Outer Ring Road, New Delhi-110 041.

under:
2. That the applicants filed the CM No.11482/05 in CWP No.3871/91 before
this Hon’ble Court and this Hon’ble Court issue the Notice vide order dt.14.09.05.
3. That the deponent say that notices to the contesting respondents,
respondent No.3/The Maitri Nagar Cooperative Group Housing Society, the
respondent No.1/Registrary Co-op. Society and several other non-applicants have
also been served except those who have been left the last known address.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this day of October 2005, that the contents of paras
No.1 to 3 of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge.
DEPONENT
C.M. NO. 11482 OF 2005

IN
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
D.O.H.: 06.10.2005
INDEX
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
1. Affidavit of Service. 1
-------------------------------------------------------

ADVOCATES FOR THE
APPLICANTS/
ANIL AGGARWAL & CO.
-------
Cases Nos.49/1988-CA to 61/1988-CA, 63/1988-CA to 65/1988-CA,

73/1988-CA, 74/1988-CA, 91/1988-CA to 95/1988-CA and 97/1988-
CA, Rev. petition U/s 80.
Among.
(1) Richpal Jain Versus Registrar, Coop. Societies

& Anr.
(2) Kulwant Rai jain Versus --do--
(3) Savitri Jain Versus --do--
(4) Saroj Jain Versus --do--
(5) Ram Parkash Versus --do--
Sorewala
(6) Krishna Devi Versus --do--
(7) Sham Lal Versus --do--
(8) Rattan Lal Jhabar Versus --do--
(9) Mehar Chand Versus --do--
(10) Ram Kishor Mothari Versus --do--
(11) Jai Chand Jain Versus --do--
(12) Prem Parkash Bansal Versus --do--
(13) Zile Singh Versus --do--
(14) Savitri Devi Jain Versus --do--
(15) Santosh Jain Versus --do--
(16) Pawan Kumar Agarwal Versus --do--
(17) N.C.Goyal Versus --do--
(18) Ram Partap Goyal Versus --do--
(19) Suresh Chand Goyal Versus --do--
(20) Shanta Ajmera Versus --do--
(21) Narain Pd. Versus --do--
(22) Vinod Kumar Versus --do--
(23) R.D.Gupta Versus --do--
(24) Nirmal Jain & Ors. Versus --do--
Represented by:- Shri R.S.Tomar, Adv. and Shri

Rakesh Munjal, Adv. for appellants and Shri
R.N.Bhardwaj, Adv. for society, Shri P.R.Sen
Gupta, ARCS for RCS.
All the above cited cases came up for hearings before me today. During
the course of arguments, the learned counsels for the respondents raised a point
that the present revision petitions under-section 80 of the Delhi Co-operative
Societies Act are not maintainable since the order dated 24.2.1988 being an
administrative order having been passed by the Registrar in his administrative
capacity. On this point, the learned counsels for the appellants submitted that
since this order being contrary to law deserves to be brushed aside by invoking
the provisions of section 80 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act since it has
snatched the valuable rights of the appellants who were not given opportunity of
being heard. The learned counsels for the appellants then read out the ingredients
of section 80 of the Act and said that there no appeal lies, in that case revisional
power under-section 80 of the Act warrants to be exercisable by this court. The
learned counsels for the appellants then confronted with the import of rule 25 of
the Rules and further it was made clear to them that the order as challenged is an
administrative order. They in reply submitted that this order in all the cases
cannot be deemed to be an administrative order since there are a number of
rulings on this point. Then they said that there is a Supreme Court ruling on this
very specific point and in case sometimes is given then the same could be
produced. There was no objection on behalf of the respondents on this point. The
learned counsels then made a request that the impugned order be stayed from
execution till further orders and the society has also decided to enroll new
members in place of the appellants and arrange to refund the amount, as such it
should be restrained from such actions. There is no rebuttal argument on this
point.
2. Keeping in view the above, it is hereby ordered that the society
should not enroll new members and further restrained from refunding
the amount to the appellants till the next date to be fixed. The
impugned order should not be fixed. The impugned order should not
be implemented till next date. This order has been announced in open
court and the parties have been made known about it. Cases fixed for
hearing on 6.7.1988 at 3.30 P.M. There is no need to issue the present
order. This order shall govern all the cases.
Sd/-
Announced. (H.L.Kapur)
Dt.2.6.1988.
Case No.49 of 1988-CA. Revision petition under section 80 of the

Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972.
Between
Shri Richpal Jain S/O

Shri Fateh Chand Jain,
R/O B-504, Meera Bagh, Delhi.
..Petitioner
Versus
1. Registrar, Cooperative Societies,

Delhi Administration, Delhi.
2. Maitrinagar Cooperative G.H.Society

Limited, Plot No.29, Sector-9,
Rohini, Delhi.
..Respondents
Present :- Shri R.S.Tomar, Adv.

Shri Rakesh Munjal, Adv.
Mrs. Rashmi Gultai, Adv.
Shri Ramesh Chand Gupta, Adv.
Shri R.N.Bhardwaj, Adv.
Shri B.M.Sethi, ARCS for RCS.

(ROMESH BHANDARI,LG)
This is a revision petition under section 80 of the
Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, hereinafter
referred to as the Act, wherein the petitioner through his
counsel challenged the order of the Registrar,
Cooperative Societies being communicated to the
President of the Society in pursuance of letter
No.F.47/392/GH/Coop/1078 dated 24.2.1988, wherein

the appellant alongwith twenty six other members of the
society have been found to have inquired disqualification
in term of rule 25 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies
Rules. It is borne out from the record that the Registrar
has appointed an Inquiry Officer to inquire into certain
allegations in terms of Section 55 of the Act. The
Election Officer was also appointed to hold the fresh
elections. Now the poisition revealed from the papers is
that the inquiry officer submitted his report on 12.2.1988
in an interim form. The complaint which led the
appointment of Inquiry Officer was that some members of
the society were not residing in Delhi and they had
furnished wrong affidavits in respect of their being
residing in Delhi. The Inquiry Officer, it appears to have
reported that notices were given to such persons which
appear to have been received unserved with the reports of
the bailiff that service could not have been done since the
addresses were not found residing in Delhi in some cases
and in some cases the addresses were found to be of not
residential one. There was also a complaint that three
members have had their own property in Delhi. The
Inquiry Officer has also found 11 cases in which false

affidavits were found to have been furnished which do
not bear the signature of the deponents through attested
by the Oath Commissioner. This report was considered
by the Registrar and on its basis he held 27 members
having had incurred disqualification in terms of rule 25
of the Rules. In the present case so also in other cases
the main grievance of the petitioners is that the Registrar
has failed to give notice to them before passing or holding
their having incurred disqualifications. Further there is
also a contention that no notice was issued to them and
whatever the notices as stated to have been given by the
Inquiry Officer to them would not be held to be valid
notice in the eye of law and further their service in a
short space of time could not at all be possible. It was
pleaded during the course of arguments that the
enrolment of the 27 persons had been after satisfaction
of the ingredients of the bye-laws read with the Act and
Rules. It was then pleaded that the action of the
Registrar cannot be said to be free from any doubt rather
it can be in collusion with the other opposite party. It
was pleaded that no person who has been held to have
incurred disqualification made known about the

allegations and the accusations which are brought
against him. It is asserted that the impugned order was
passed without affording any reasonable opportunity. It
was further pleaded that the power of the Registrar in
terms of rule 25 cannot be delegated to any other person
rather it is within the competence of the Registrar to
adjudge the out-come of the allegations in terms of rule
25. According to the learned counsels for the petitioners,
the Registrar has never applied his mind nor therewas
any notice to the petitioners from his behalf and further
the approval as granted to hold the disqualifications of
the petitioners would not be held to be the action of the
Registrar after application of his mind. In rebuttal the
argument is that the present revisions are not
maintainable since the same do not come within the
ambit of section 80 of the Act. Second ground put-forth
by the opposite side is that the business of issue of notice
was confined to the office of the Registrar and in case any
notice has been issued by his officer or official it would
not loose the sanctity of issue of the notice. The Senior
counsel for the society in fairness submitted that in case
this court considers to give opportunity of being heard,

then specific date for appearance of the petitioners would
be notified avoiding delay. Indirectly, being a Senior
Counsel, he was also not satisfied with the mode of
service since he kept quiet when certain reports of the
bailiff were read over to me by the departmental
representative. The departmental representative could
not satisfy me as to how the names of the present
petitioners have been chosen for initiation of proceedings
under section 55 of the Act qua the rule 25 of the Rules.
The learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that
this court has jurisdiction in terms of section 80 to take
note of the inaction suo moto.
2. I have considered the points raised. It is settled law
that any allegation against any particular person or
persons has to be inquired into after notice to such
person or persons. Further the letter communicating the
disqualification does not disclose as to what kind of
disqualification a particular man has had. Before
passing the order by the Registrar, the persons
concerned should have been heard and there should
have been proper notice to them to represent their cases.

The file of the Registrar itself shows that he has simply
approved the action proposed by his subordinate
meaning thereby that he has failing to apply his mind.
How could the preliminary report of the Inquiry Officer be
made the basis for holding disqualifications without
opportunity to the affected persons rather this is
injustice to them. Further there had been no proper
notice to the revisionists by the Inquiry Officer. In case
the service could not have been affected other mode of
service would have been adopted as provided by the Act
and the Rules therefore. The Departmental
representative could not satisfy me that the proceedings
as conducted have not been defective. Besides the above
cited revision, though the arguments as advanced in the
following other cases of like nature have also been
incorporated above, as such the same shall also stand
disposed off by this order. A copy of this order be placed
on each of the revision file.
Sr.No. Case No.

Appellant
Respondent_____
1. 50/88 Kulwant Rai Jain 1. Registrar, Coop. Societies.
2. Matrinagar Coop. G.H.
Society Limited.
2. 51/88 Savitri Jain - do –
3. 52/88 Saroj Jain - do –
4. 53/88 Ram Parkash Shorewala - do –
5. 54/88 Krishna Devi - do –
6. 55/88 Shyam Lal - do –
7. 56/88 Rattan Lal Jhewar - do –
8. 57/88 Mehar Chand - do –
9. 58/88 Ram Kishore Kothari - do –
10. 59/88 Jai Chand Jain - do –
11. 60/88 Prem Parkash Bansal - do –
12. 61/88 Zile Singh - do –
13. 63/88 Savitri Devi Jain - do –
14. 64/88 Santosh Jain - do –
15. 65/88 Pawan Kumar Agarwal - do –
16. 73/88 N.C.Goel - do –
17. 74/88 Ram Partap Goel - do –
18. 91/88 Suresh Chand Goel - do –
19. 92/88 Shanta Ajmera - do –
20. 93/88 Narain Parshad - do –
21. 94/88 Vinod Kumar - do –
22. 95/88 R.D.Gupta - do –
23. 97/88 Nirmal Jain & Others - do –
Irrespective of the revision petitions being
maintainable or not, since I have found the action of the
Registrar being full of infirmities and there appears
commission of various irregularities. As such, it would
not be possible to allow such inaction to be prevailing
rather it would be reasonable on my part to eradicate
them by using suo moto powers. With this view of the
matter, it is hereby ordered as under:-
(i) that the petitioners should make appearance
before the Registrar for the purpose of defending their
cases on 27.12.1988 at 11 A.M.
(ii) that the Registrar shall decide upon the issue
under rule 25 of the Rules after proper hearing to the
concerned persons by the middle of January, 1988. He
should also examine the records of the society and to

take appropriate action in terms of the provisions of the
Act and the Rules.
(iii) that the registrar should also examine the
position and status of rest of the members and report in
this behalf be submitted to me separately.
(iv) status quo be maintained regarding the
position and status of the petitioners and other like
persons till the dispute is finally adjudicated upon by the
Registrar.
Since the elections of the society have not yet been held, as
such, the same should be completed immediately after the out-
come of the dispute with the Registrar.
A copy of this order be sent to the learned counsels for the
parties and copy of it be sent to the Registrar for implementation.
Announced. Sd/-Romesh Bhandari

Dt.9.12.1988.
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR : COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES OLD
COURTS BUILDING : PARLIAMENT STREET : NEW DELHI.
In the matter of :
Inquiry regarding ceasation of membership
of 27 Members of Matri Nagar Coop. G/H Society Ltd.
--------------------------------------------------
ORDER
As per orders of Lt. Governor Delhi passed in the case of
Maitri Nagar Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. inquiry with
regard to 27 Members was conducted by examining the records
produced by the Society. Given below is the brief of findings of the
inquiry in each case :-
1. Shri Kulwant Raio Jain (Membership No.10-A)
Shri Kulwant Rai Jain’s membership was ceased from the
society as he was not residing in Delhi but was residing in Bansi.
The society has relied on the membership register which has not
been signed by the member and all letters sent to him had been
received back. The member produced registered letters of the
society which were received by him at the address given in the
membership register upto 23.11.1987. The member had also
taken requisite action as per the letters of the Society. The Society
could not produce any conclusive evidence to prove that he did not
reside in Delhi. It was, therefore not proper to cease his
membership from the Society in the absence of any concrete proof.

His membership was ceased from the society on the ground
that the address given by him as his residential address was found
to be a ship of Iron Merchant and he was not residing there. The
only reason put forth by the Society in support of its contention
was that all the letters sent to the members have been received
back. However, in support of his claim the member produced
documents which covered period from 1972 to 1978 with the
address of the petitioner on all the documents as 1193, Kucha Pati
Ram which has been alleged by the Society to be not the
residential address of the member. The society could produce any
conclusive evidence against the petitioner while the petitioner
produced enough evidence to substantiate his claim that he
resides at the same address. There was no ground, therefore, to
cease his membership from the Society.
Her membership was ceased from the Society because she
was not found residing at D-9, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. The Society
produced affidavit duly attested by the Oath Commissioner but not
signed by the deponent and registered letters No.1580 dated
22.1.1987, No.2563 dated 21.1.1987, and No.751 dated 1.1.1987
which were sent to her but were received back. In one of the
registered letters address mentioned by the Society as A-9, Ashok
Vihar instead of D-9, Ashok Vihar. The President of the Society
stated that Ms. Kusum Jain was being financed by Shri N.C.Goel,
ex-President of the Society and this is a benami membership of
Shri N.C.Goel. Ms. Kusum Jain failed to produce any
documentary proof in support of her claim. Inspite of
opportunities having been given to her the member could not
substantiate her claim and, therefore, it is concluded that the
His membership was ceased as he was found not residing at
the address given in the membership register. The society
produced unsigned affidavits but duly attested by an Oath
Commissioner and six letters that were rent at the address given in
the Register from the period 12.7.85 to 17.7.1985. The President
of the Society also stated that Shri Gupta was financed by Shri
N.C.Goel and that it was a ‘benami’ membership of Shri N.C.Goel.
The petitioner in his defence produced a leter of Deputy Chief
manager (Personnel), Oriental Bank of Commerce dated 30.4.1988
that Shri R.D.Gupta works as a Special Assistant and is a resident
of House No.2, Model Town, Bahadurgarh. The petitioner failed to
avail the opportunity awarded by the Hon’ble L.G. to prove his
bonafide claim. He was enrolled as a member in 1979 and there is
no conclusive evidence that he was residing in Delhi in 1979 or
even up-to-date. Hence this membership was rightly ceased by the
society.

The case of the society is that all letters sent to Shri
R.P.Shorewal at 3228, Chowmukhi Mandir were received
back. The Society also produced two unsigned affidavits.
From the documents produced by the member it could
not be conclusively established that he was resident of
Delhi at the time when he was enrolled as member.
Therefore, the society was right in ceasing his
membership.
The case of the Society is that she was not a resident of
Delhi at the relevant time when she was enrolled as a member in
the society. She is in fact a resident of 15/2C, Chitla Road,
Calcutta. The member could not produce any conclusive evidence
of residence in Delhi either at present or at the time she was
enrolled as a member in 1981. The society was right in ceasing
her membership.
His membership was ceased from the Society as he was not
resident in Delhi at the relevant time. The president of the Society
stated that he is a resident of Rohtak and that it is the ‘Banami’
membership of Shri N.C.Goel. The documents produced by the
member could not conclusively establish that he was resident of
Delhi at the relevant time. Therefore, the Society rightly ceased his
membership.
His membership was ceased from the Society as he is
residing in Delhi and had given a fictitious address from which
letters sent by the Society have been received back. The member
could not conclusively establish that he is a resident of Delhi either
at the relevant time or even now. The society was right in ceasing
his membership.
His membership was ceased from the Society as he was not
resident of Delhi at the time of enrolment. He is in fact resident of
Faridabad and all letters sent to him at the address 8, Ishwar
Colony, Bumper Road, Delhi, were received back. Shei Kothari,
However, produced documents which clearly establish that he has
been residing in Delhi from the time he became member in the
Society. Therefore, the Society was not right in ceasing his
membership.
The membership of Shri P.P.Bansal was ceased from the
Society as he was not resident of Delhi. The Society’s contention is
that Shri Bansal is residing in Pune and is a domicile of Haryana.
Shri Bansal was enrolled as a member on 14.7.1986 from the
address 504, Meera Bagh, Delhi, from the documents supplied by
Shri Bansal it is conclusively established that he was resident of
Delhi at the relevant time and, therefore, the society was not right

His membership was ceased on the ground that he was not
residing in Delhi and all letters sent to him at the address given by
him were received back by the Society. Further the society stated
that it was a ‘Banami’ membership of Shri N.C.Goel. From the
records produced by Shri N.K.Jain it could not be conclusively
established that he was resident of Delhi at the relevant time.
Therefore, the society was right tin ceasing his membership.
The Society ceased his membership as he was not resident of
Delhi. In fact, he was resident of 23-A, Subhash Road, Calcutta.
Registered Letters sent at the Local address in Delhi were received
back by the Society. The evidence produced by Shri Pawan Kumar
Aggarwal in support of his claim has conclusively established that
he was a resident of Delhi at the relevant time. Therefore, the
society was not right in ceasing his membership.
The membership of Shri Rattan Lal Jhawar was ceased as he
was not residing in Shakti Nagar at the address given at the time
of enrolment. Actualy, he is residing in Faridabad. Although he
has produced rent receipt since 1963, the landlord says that he is
not residing there and he has taken false receipt. He is actually
residing in House No.38, Sector-VII Faridabad. The documents
produced by Shri Jain in support of his claim conclusively prove
that he was a resident of Delhi at the relevant time and, therefore,
the society was not right in ceasing his membership.

Her membership was ceased by the Society as she was not
residing in Delhi. The address given is of Punjab National Bank
which is not a residential address. Ms. Jain could not produce any
document to conclusively prove that she was residing in Delhi at
the relevant time. Therefore, the society was right in ceasing her
membership.
The membership of Shri Suresh Chand Goel was ceased as
he was not residing in Delhi and he was a resident of Calcutta.
Further the society alleged that it was actually a case of ‘Benami’
membership of Shri N.C.Goel. The members could not produce
any evidence in support of his claim and, therefore, the society was
The membership of Ms. Krishan Devi was ceased as all the
letters sent to her were received back and that she is a resident of
Hissar and not of Delhi. The society further alleged that it is a
‘Benami’ membership of Shri N.C.Goel. The member could not
produce any document to conclusively prove that she was resident
of Delhi. The Society was right in ceasing her membership.
Her membership was ceased as she was not residing in Delhi
at the relevant time when she became member of the Society and
that it is a ‘Benami membership of Shri N.C.Goel. The members
could not produce any document to prove that she was the
resident of Delhi at the relevant time and, therefore, the Society
was right in ceasing her membership.
His membership was ceased as he was not residing in Delhi
in fact he is residing in Calcutta. All the letters sent to him were
received back. The member produced documents which
conclusively establish that he was a resident of Delhi at the
relevant time. The Society was, therefore, not right in ceasing his
membership.
His membership was also ceased as he was not a resident of
Delhi. From the documents produced by him it could not be
conclusively established that he was a resident of Delhi at the
relevant time. Therefore, the society was right in ceasing his
membership.
20. Shri Shyam Lal Jain (Membership No.43)
His membership was ceased on the ground that he owns a
house in Shalimar Bagh and is, therefore, disqualified under rule
25 to become a member of the society. From the documents
produced by Shri Jain it has been established that he did not
suffer from any of the disqualifications as pointed out by the
society as the property stated to be in his name is not in the name
of Shri J.L.Jai. The Society was, therefore, not right in ceasing his
membership.

The membership of Shri N.C.Goel was ceased from the
Society as there was no response on the notice served on him.
Further it was alleged by the Society that Shri N.C. Goel is holder
os the property No.AG-20, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. A copy of the
lease deed was also filed. From the documents produced by the
Society and the member, it has been clearly established that Shri
N.C.Goel suffered from disqualification under rule 25 and,
therefore, the society was right in ceasing his membership.
The membership of Shri Richhpal Jain was ceased on the
ground that he own property No.504, Meera Bagh, Delhi. From the
documents produced before me it has been clearly established that
property No.504, Meera Bagh is not in the name of Shri Richhpal
Jain and therefore, the society was not right in ceasing his
membership.
Her membership was ceased as she was found to be resident
of Calcutta. The society also pointed out that it is a ‘Benami’
membership of Shri N.C.Goel. The member could not produce any
document which could conclusively established that she was a
resident of Delhi at the relevant time, therefore, the society was
right in ceasing her membership.
She is a resident of Rewari and according to the Society it is
a ‘Benami’ membership for Shri N.C. Goel. She was enrolled on
4.4.1981. The member could not produce any document which

could establish her claim of a bonafide member of the society. The
Society was right in ceasing her membership.
As per the versions of the Society she is a resident of
Calcutta with he address 54-A, Block-B, Bango Avenue, VIP Road,
Caocutta. She produced documents which clearly establish that
she was a resident of Delhi at the relevant time, therefore, the
society was not right in ceasing her membership.
His membership was ceased from the Society because he
was not residing in Delhi at the relevant time. The member could
not produce any document which could conclusively prove that he
was a resident of Delhi at the relevant time. Therefore, the Society
was right in ceasing his membership.
Her membership was ceased as she was reportedly not
residing in Delhi and in fact she was resident of Calcutta. The
member could not produce any document in support of her claim,
therefore, the society was right in ceasing membership.
Orders accordingly.
Sd/-
(K.S.MEHRA)
No.RCS/OGH/89/8509 Dated 27.9.1989.

1. President/Secretary, Maitri Nagar, Cooperative G/H Society
Ltd., Plot No.29, Sector No.9, Rohini, Delhi.
Sd/-
(K.S.MEHRA)
OLD COURT BUILDING PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI.
ORDER
Whereas Maitri Ngr. Society is registered with the department at Sl.
No.392 (GH).
And whereas a show cause notice under section 32 of Delhi Coop.
Societies Act, 1972 was issued to the Society vide this Office Order
No.F.47/392/GH/Coop./2566 dated 11-4-90.
And whereas the reply of Society which was received on 23-4-90 was
examined and found unsatisfactory on account of on going facts.
And whereas membership of 27 members was seized because of the
reasons of non-resident of Delhi or having properties in Delhi.
And whereas these 27 members filed an appeal before Hon’ble Lt.
Governor who remanded the case to Registrar Coop. Societies for fresh disposal.
And whereas, in the meantime the Society enrolled 27 members in place
of above mentioned 27 persons without waiting for the outcome of decision of
Registrar Coop. Societies. This action os Society clearly indicates its malafide
intention.
And whereas Registrar Coop. Societies vide order dated 27-9-89 restored
the membership of 10 members.

And whereas these 10 members were neither invited nor allowed to
participate in the celiberations of GB held on 31-12-89 as reported by the
Observer appointed by the Registrar Coop. Societies.
This again shows malafide intention of the Society and violation of Orders
issued by Registrar Coop. Societies.
And whereas the contention of Society in its reply that Society cannot
accept these 10 members as the matter is sub-judice in the court of Hon’ble Lt.
Governor is not acceptable since the Court has not passed any order restraining
the execution of Orders passed by the Registrar Coop. Societies.
And whereas from forgoing account it is established that Managing
Committee of society is totally negligent in discharge of its duties and has no
respect for the statutory orders passed by Registrar Coop. Societies. The
Managing Committee is thus working in most arbitrary manner.
Now, therefore I, R. Raghuraman Joint Registrar Coop. Societies hereby
under the powers vested in me u/s 32 (1)(5) remove the managing committee and
appoint Shri K.J.R. Burman, Director of Community Services M.C.D. as
Administrator. The Administrator is required to sort out the above mentioned
issues and submit report to the Registrar Co-op. Societies Delhi.
The Administrator shall be entitled to an allowance of Rs.500/- (Rs. Five
Hundred Only) per month which shall be born out of Society’s Fund.
Sd/-
(R.Raghuraman)
Co-operative Societies
No.F47/392/GH/Coop/3447/90 dated 30-5-90

Shri K.J.R. Burman,
M.C.D.
Maitri Nagar Co-op. G/H Society Ltd.
B-43 G.T.Karnal Road, Indl. Area,
Delhi.
Versus

ORDER
16.12.1991
PRESENT: Mr. A.S.Chandhiok with Mr. Rajiv Mehra for the

petitioners.
C.W.3871/91
Notice to the respondents to show-cause why the petition be not admitted,
returnable on 30th January, 1992.
Shri S.K.Mahajan accepts notice on behalf Respondent No.1 & 2. The
Administrator accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.3. Shri Anand Jain
Respondent No.5 is present in court and he is served with the notice of the
petition. A copy of petition be given to him.
Notice be issued to the other respondents by ordinary post as well as Dasti
for the next date of hearing.
C.M.6458/91
Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a document which
was filed by the secretary – custodian of records of the society with the Registrar
Co-operative Societies giving a list of records as on 30.6.88. The Secretary at that
time was Shri Shyam Lal Jain Respondent No.9. According to Mr. Mahajan and
the Administrator full record of society have not been handed over to the
Administrator. Despite repeated attempts, it is only yesterday that some records
were handed over. According to the list of records which is prepared by the
Administrator no ledger after 30th June 89 has been handed over nor has any cash
book after 30th June 89 has been given. Comparing the list of records handed over
with the list which was filed by the then Secretary of the Society. We find that a
number of important records have not been given for example, cash book for Ist
July, 87 to 30th June 88 has not been handed over. Minutes book after 30 th June
86 have not been given nor is it evident that individual member files which were
99 in number have been given.
Directions is issued to Respondent No.5 & 9 to deliver all the records of
the society atleast as per list already filed by Respondent No.9 with the Registrar
of Co-op. Society, copy of which list has been handed over to Mr. V.P.Singh and
to Respondent No.5, within one week from today. These respondents should also
hand over to the Administrator other documents including all the cash books and
the Minute Books after 30th June, 86 within this period of one week. If no action
is taken or if the full records, books, documents etc. are not handed over as
directed by us then the Respondent No.1 & 2 shall take action against the
defaulters under the relevant provisions of Delhi Co-op. Societies Act including
Section 82 thereof.
Pending disposal of the writ petition we direct that Respondents 10 to 15
shall in no way transfer, alienate or part with the possession of the flats which
have been allotted to them and nor will they encumber the said flats in any way.
The Administrator will in the meanwhile verify and determine the list of
members who were legitimately entitled to be enrolled as such. The
Administrator will also give a report as to who are in actual physical possession of
99 flats.
On a question put by us Shri Anand Jain who is present in court says that
there was a minute book which was in existance after June 86 and that minute
book was with him.
Q. Where has that minute book gone because you were the president of the
society till May 1990 ?
Ans. Despite the fact that the question has been repeated a number of times,
Shri Jain refuses to give an answer.
The aforesaid inability of Shri Jain to give the answer will be taken into
consideration by Respondents No.1&2. If and when they take action under the
said Act.
Copy of this order be given dasti to Counsel for the parties.
Sd/-
Mr.B.N.KIRPAL.J.
Sd/-
Mr.ARUN KUMAR.J.
Versus

ORDER
28.5.1992
Present : Mr. A.S.Chandhiok with Rajiv Mehra for the applicant.
C.M.4034/92
Notice for 9th July, 92. After hearing Ld. Counsel for the
applicant we are of the opinion that ex-parte order should be
made. Mr. Arvind Nigam Advocate who is present in Court is
appointed as Local Commissioner to visit Maitri Nagar Co-op.
Group Housing Society Ltd. at Plot No.29 Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-
85 to make a report as to who are in actual physical possession of
99 flats of the society. We will also restrain respondent No.5 from
in any manner interfering in the work of the society or in any
manner dealing with, alienating transferring, allotting or parting
with possession of any flat forming part of the societies complex.
Respondent No.5 is also restrained from creating any impediment
of any nature of whatsoever in the ingress and egress of any
member of the society, family members, friends, visitors and
employees, Local Commissioner shall also make a report if there

has been any such impediment. Local Commissioner will also
place his own locks on the flats, which he finds unoccupied. A
direction is issued to S.H.O. Sameypur Badli Police Station to
provide to all possible assistance as required by the Local
Commissioner in discharging his duties. No obstruction will be
caused to the Local Commissioner in discharge of his duties by
any one Local Commissioner will also take photographs of the
complex as he may deem fit and necessary. The fee of the Local
Commissioner tentatively is fixed at Rs.5,000/- excluding out of
pocket expenses which shall be subject to further orders of the
Court. Fee shall be paid by the petitioners at the first instance.
Dasti as well. A copy of this order will be given Dasti.
Sd/-
Mr.D.P.WADHWA. J.
Sd/-
Mr.R.L.GUPTA. J.
LIST OF MEMBERS OF MAITRI NAGAR COOPERATIVE GROUP
HOUSING SOCIETY AS FILED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR
DT.9.11.1993

Aggarwal.




Sd/-9.11.93
(S.P.SEHGAL)
ADMINISTRATOR
GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.
C.M. NO.________ OF 2005

IN
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
Smt. Shanta Ajmera & Ors. ..APPLICANTS
Versus
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 CPC FOR GRANT OF
EXEMPTION FROM FILING THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE
ANNEXURES.
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the applicants/petitioners have filed an application for Re-
calling or Modifying the part of order dt.12.08.2005 to the extent it is
pertaining to the applicants/petitioners No.18, 19 & 20. The main writ
petition mentioned above is pending before this Hon’ble Court, and is
now fixed for 26.10.2005 for further proceedings.

2. That the annexures to the said application/C.M. are already on the record
of this Hon’ble Court in the above mentioned writ petition. The annexures filed
along with the aforesaid application/C.M. are being filed only for ready reference.
3. That the certified copies of the said documents are not readily available
with the applicants/petitioners, though some of the original are already on the
Court file in the present writ petition.
4. That the certified copies of the said annexures may take time to obtain and
moreover, since various annexures in original are already on record and the rest of
the annexures have already been filed on record as true copy of the original.
Hence, the certified copies may not be needed along with the present application.
However, the applicants/petitioners undertake to file the same if this Hon’ble
Court is pleased to direct so.
It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that in view of the facts
and submissions mentioned above, the filing of the certified copies of
the annexures may kindly be exempted, in the interest of justice.

ADVOCATES FOR THE
APPLICANTS/
PETITIONERS NO.18,19 & 20
ANIL AGGARWAL & CO.
DATED: 04.10.2005 TIS HAZARI, DELHI-54.
C.M. NO.________ OF 2005

IN
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
LETTER OF MOTION
WP(C) No.3871 of 1991 will be listed before Court on ______ October
2005 at 10.30 O’Clock in the forenoon, or so soon thereafter as may be
convenient to the Court.

ADVOCATES FOR THE
APPLICANTS/
ANIL AGGARWAL & CO.
1. Nominated counsels for Registrar Coop. Society.

2. Mr. C.Mohan Rao, Advocate for DDA.
3. Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, Advocate.
4. Shri Vaibhav Dang, Advocate
5. Shri Rakesh Mahajan, Advocate.
6. Shri S.S.Jain, Advocate.
7. Shri S.S.Mishra, Advocate.
C.M. NO.________ OF 2005

IN
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
To
The Registrar,
High Court of Delhi
At New Delhi.
Sir,
“That the present application for re-calling or modifying
the part of order dt.12.08.2005. Hence, urgent directions are needed.”

ADVOCATES FOR THE
APPLICANTS/
ANIL AGGARWAL & CO.
20.10.1995
Ms. Kalpana K. Tripathi for respondent No.1&2.
Mr. Kirti Uppal for respondent No.3.
Ms. Sangeeta Chandra for Counsel for Respondent No.4 DDA.
Mr. P.N. Bhan for Respondent No.5.
Mr. R.K. Aggarwal Advocate.
Mr. Anil Sapra Advocate.
Mr. R.K. Saini for the respondent No.9.
C.W. No.3871/91
On behalf of respondent No.3 a affidavit dt.19.7.95 has been filed. The
Ld. Counsel states that this affidavit has been filed by the Respondent No.3 in
compliance with the order dt.2.2.95. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner points out
that this affidavit does not satisfy the requirement of order dt.2.2.95. We allow
six weeks time to the respondent No.3 to chekup if the affidavit satisfies the
requirement of the order of the Court if it does not, then an additional affidavit
must be filed. It the additional affidavit is not filed and we find that the order of
the Court has not been complied with then the respondent No.3 must be prepared
to face the consequences.
C.M.8228/94
This is an application filed on behalf of one Mr. Anil Aggarwal, an
intervener in the proceedings. It is admitted that Mr. Anil Aggarwal has expired
after the filing of the application. The Local dates that yet another application on
behalf of L.Rs has been filed vide diary No.23764 dt.19.10.1995. Let that
application be brought on record. Copies of both these applications shall be
delivered by the Counsel to all other parties appearing in the case. On the next
date applications shall come up for hearing, replies, if any may be filed in due
course.
We find that there are a number of other C.Ms pending for consideration
let all the Ld. Counsel appearing in the case inspect the records. If there are any
applications copies where of have not been delivered to them, they shall ask for
the same by delivering letter to the counsel for the respective applicants.
Pleadings in the applications shall be completed before the appointed date.
CM 8409/93
This application calls for reply from respondents No.1 & 3 as submitted
by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/applicant. Let him deliver a copy of the
application to the Counsel for respondents No.1 & 3. Reply before the appointed
date.
To come up for hearing on 27th February, 1996.
20h October, 1995. Sd/- MR.R.C.LAHOTI. J.

Sd/- Mr. LOKESHWAR PRASAD. J.
27.02.1996
******
(Order dt.27.2.96 not available)
02.09.1996
******
07.01.1997
******
31.03.1997
Mr. Sanjay Poddar for Respondent No.1.
CW 3871/91
Respondent No.3 has not complied with the order passed on 7.1.97. It was
on 2.9.96 the Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.3 had undertaken to file a list of the
flats owners and the person in occupation, which as stated in the order passed on
7.1.97 would be very relevant for effective decision of this petition. One more
opportunity be allowed to Respondent No.3 to place the list on record within a
period of 4 weeks.
To be posted for hearing on 4.8.97.
Sd/-
31st March, 1997. MR.DEVENDER GUPTA. J.
Sd/-
Mr. K.S. GUPTA. J.
04.08.1997
******
07.08.1997
Present : Mr. A.S. Chadwick for petitioner.
Mr. Sagita Khadaria for DDA.
Mr. R.K. Saini for Respondent No.9.
CM No.6180/97
In view of the various orders, particularly order
dt.02.09.1996, we do not consider it necessary at this stage to
serve the proposed respondents. Keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the view that presence of
persons whose names are mentioned at serial Nos.16 to 38 will be
necessary in order to effectively decide the matter in controversy.
They are permitted to be added as respondents No.16 to 38. As
such application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Permission to amend the petition is allowed as prayed. Amended
petition is taken on record.
CW NO.3871/91
The petitioner shall take out Dasti notices on filing process
fee within a week and have them served on the newly added
respondents No.16 to 38.
Rule DB has already been issued.
The respondents to file counter affidavit(s), if any, within 4
weeks. Rejoinder, if any, will be filed within 4 weeks thereafter. To
be shown for hearing within first ten cases on 8.12.1997.
Sd/-
MR.DEVENDER GUPTA. J.
Sd/-
Mr. K. RAMAMOORTHY. J.
08.12.1997
Present : Mr. A.S.Chandhiok with Ms. Neelam Rathore for
petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar for Respondents No.1 & 2, Mr.
Praveen San for respondent No.9, 26(a),(b)(c) & 27.
Mr. Ravi Aggarwal & Rajesh Benati for Respondent
No.16, 18, 20,21,24,25 & 29-36.
Mr. S.S. Raj for Respondent No.38.
CW 3871/91
As per the affidavit of service filed on behalf of
petitioner, the respondents are served. Newly added
respondents have not filed there reply so far. 8 week
further time as prayed, is allowed of last opportunity to
them to file the reply.
Rejoinder, if any will be filed within a period of 4 weeks,
thereafter, case will now be shown for hearing on daily board
within first ten months on 27.4.98.
Sd/-
MR.DEVENDER GUPTA. J.
th
8 December, 1997 Mr. K. RAMAMOORTHY. J.
27.04.1998
(Order dt.27.4.98 not available in court file)
16.02.1999
Mr. Rakesh Kumar for Counsel for the respondent.
CW No.3871/91
List before same other Bench in which one of us (Usha
Mehra) is not member.
Sd/-
MRS. USHA MEHRA. J.
MR. S.N. KAPOOR. J.
6.11.2000
Present : None for the applicant/respondent No.5.
CM 10150/00 IN CW No.3871/91
Notice to the non-applicants, returnable on 9 th January,
2001.
Sd/-
DR. M.K. SHARMA. J.
09.01.2001
Present : Ms. Neelam Rathore for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma for the
applicant/respondent No.5.
Ms. Bharti Panwar for respondent No.3.
Mr. R.K. Saini for respondents No.9,26 & 27.
Mr. P.Nandrajog for respondents No.16,18,20,
21,24,25,28 to 36.
Mr. S.S. Ray for respondent No.38.
CM No.309/2001
Notice.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Ms. Panwar, Mr. Saini, Mr.
Nandrajog & Mr. Ray accept notice on behalf of respondents
No.5,3,9,26,27,16 to 21,24,25,28 to 36 & 38.
List the matter on 29th March, 2001.
CM No.10150/00 IN CW No.3871/91
To come up on 29th March 2001.
Sd/-
MR. O.P. DWIVEDI. J.
29.03.2001
Mr. Netra Pal Singh for respondent No.5.
Mr. S.S. Ray for respondent No.38.
CM Nos.309/01 & 10150/00 IN CW No.3871/91

List these application along with the writ petition which is
item No.17 ion the regular board, on 9th April, 2001.
Sd/-
09.04.2001
CM Nos.309/01 & 10150/00 IN CW No.3871/91

At request adjourned to 16th April, 2001.
Sd/-
16.04.2001
02.05.2001
Present : Mr. Anil Aggarwal for petitioner No.12.
Mr. R.P. Bansal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Jaya
Rachecha & Mr. Sanjay Pathak for
respondent/Society.
Mr. Pradeep Nandrajog for Respondent
No.16,18,20,21,24,28 to 36.
CWP No.3871/91 & CM Nos.10150/00 & 309/01

Heard in part. At request. Adjourned to May 14, 2001.
Sd/-
14.05.2001
23.05.2001
Present : Mr. Anil Aggarwal with Mr. Dinesh Kumar for the
petitioner.
Mr. R.P. Bansal Sr. Advocate with Ms. Jaya Rachecha
for respondent No.3.
CW No.3871/91 & CM Nos.10150/00 & 309/01

Heard in part. To come up on 24th May, 2001.
Sd/-
24.05.2001
30.05.2001
Present : Mr. Anil Aggarwal with Mr. Dinesh Kumar for the
petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep Nandrajog for Respondent
No.16,18,20,21,24,28 to 36.
CWP No.3871/91 & CM Nos.10150/00 & 309/01

Ld. Counsel for the respondents o.16,18, 9,21,24,28 to 36
claim that issues raised in the instant petition are interlinked with
issues arising in writ petition No.2890/95. The writ petition is
listed for 16th July, 2001.
List the matter on 16th July, 2001. The instant writ petition
shall retain its position in the list.
Sd/-
12.7.2001
Present : Mr. Dinesh Kumar for the applicants.
CM No.7092/01 IN CWP No.3871/91

List the application on 16th July, 2001 before the same
Bench which had partly heard the matter.
Sd/-
MR. MADAN B. LOKUR. J.
16.07.2001
Present : None for the applicants.
Mr. Adil Alvi for respondents No.6 to 8 & 10 to 15.
CM No.7092/01 IN CWP No.3871/91
The matter need not be treated as part heard. List the
matter before the concerned Bench on 20th July, 2001.
Sd/-
20.07.2001
Present : Mr. Anil Aggarwal for the petitioner.
Mr. R.P. Bansal Sr. Advocate with Ms. Jaya Rachecha
for Respondent No.3.
Mr. Anil Sapra for respondents No.6 to 8 & 10 to 15.
CM No.7092/01 IN CW No.3871/91
At request of Ld. Counsel for respondent No.3, adjourned to
st
21 August, 2001.
Sd/-
21.08.2001
Mr. R.P. Bansal Sr. Advocate with Ms. Bharti Pawar
for respondent No.3.
Mr. Anil Sapra for respondent No.6 to 8 & 10 to 15.
CM No.7092/01
The application is allowed.
Amended Memo of Parties be filed within six weeks.
CW No.3871/91
List the matter for hearing in the normal course.
Further affidavits, if any be filed within six weeks.
Sd/-
09.10.2001
Present : Mr. Anil Aggarwal for the applicant.
CM No.10675/01 IN CW No.3871/91
Issue notice to the non-applicants through Counsel
returnable on 15th January 2002.
Mr. Arjun Pant accepts notice on behalf of the DDA and
seeks time to take instructions.
Sd/-
15.01.2002
Present : Mr. Anil Aggarwal for the applicants.
Mr. Anil Sapra for Respondent No.6 to 8 and 10 to 15.
CM No.10675/01 IN CW No.3871/91
Issue fresh notice to the unserved non-applicants for 10 th
April 2002. Dasti as well.
Sd/-
10.04.2002
Present : Mr. R.P. Bansal Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohit Saroha
for Respondent No.3.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Raina Advocate for Respondent No.6
to 8, 10 to 16.
Mr. A.S.Chandhiok Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anil
Aggarwal, Mr. Vithal & Mr. Dipankar Pandey for the
applicant in CM No.10675/01
CORAM:
Hon’ble Justice Anil Dev Singh.
Hon’ble Justice Madan B. Lokur.
CM 10675/01 IN CWP No.3871/91

Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant states that it is
not necessary to serve the unserved respondents as the matter is
between the applicant and the society in so far as this application
is concerned.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the Society states that he will file
a reply within four weeks. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two
weeks thereafter.
To come upon 12th August, 2002.
Sd/-
10th April, 2002 MR. MADAN B.LOKUR. J.
NOTES:
Reply to CM 10675/01 not filed.
12.08.2002
Present : Mr. Anil Aggarwal Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. R.P.Bansal Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.D. Sharma for
Respondent No.3.
Mr. R.K. Gupta for respondent .
Mr. Arjun Pant for Respondent No.4.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Raina for Respondent No.6to 8.
CORAM:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.A. Khan.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor.
CM No.10675/01 & CW 3871/91

List for disposal along with CWP No.2890/95 on 7th October
2002. Meanwhile objections be filed, if any, to this application.
Sd/-
MR. B.A. KHAN. J.
MR. J.D. KAPOOR. J.
Notes:
Reply not filed.
07.10.2002
Present : Mr. Anil Aggarwal for petitioner.
Mr. Adil Alvi for Respondents No.7,8,10 to 15.
CORAM:
Hon’ble Justice B.A. Khan.
Hon’ble Justice B.N. Chaturvedi.
CM No.10675/01 IN CW No.3871/91
Hon’ble Judge are on leave.
Adjourned to 28th November, 2002.
By Order
MR.A.K.SRIVASTAV
October 7, 2002. (COURT MASTER)
Notes:
Amended Memo of Parties filed.
28.11.2002
Present : Mr. N.P. Singh Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. R.P. Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.D. Sharma
Advocate for Respondent No.3.
CORAM:
Hon’ble Justice B.A. Khan.
Hon’ble Justice R.S. Sodhi.
CW No.3871/91
Adjourned for non availability of Regular Bench. List on
21.02.2003 along with record of CWP No.902/05 and CCP
No.309/95.
Sd/-
MR. B.A. KHAN. J.
28th November, 02 MR. R.S.SODHI. J.
21.02.2003
Present : Mr. N.P.Singh for petitioner.
Mr. R.P.Bansal Sr. Adv. for R-2
Mr. Adil Alvi for R- 6,8,10& 15
Mr. R.K.Gupta for R. No.17.
CW No.3871/91
Let this writ petition be listed along with CWP
No.2890/95 & CCP No.309/95 as well as 5398/97.
Renotify on 21st May, 2003 for directions.
21st February, 2003 Sd/-

Mr.VIJENDER JAIN. J.
Mr. B.N.CHATURVEDI. J.
21.05.2003
Present : Mr. Anil Aggarwal with Ms. Neelam Advocate.
Mr. R.P. Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.D.
Sharma for Respondent No.2.
Mr. Advil Alvi for Respondents No.6,8,10,15.
CORAM:
Hon’ble Justice Dalveer Bhandari.
Hon’ble Justice R.S.Sodhi.
CWP 3871/91
We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties. In view

of the earlier orders we deem it appropriate to list this petition
for final hearing in the category of after notice “Miscellaneous
Matters” along with CWP 2890/95 and CWP No.5398/97 on
15th July, 2003.
Sd/-
MR. DALVEER BHANDARI. J.
MR. R.S.SODHI. J.
15.07.2003
D.C. Maheshwari Petitioner
Through Mr. Anil Aggarwal.
Vs.
Reg. Of Coop. Societies Respondents

Through Mr. R.P. Bansal, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. P.D. Sharma
for R-2 Mr. Adil Alvi for R-
6,8,10,16.
CORAM:
Hon’ble Mr. J. Dalveer Bhandari.
Hon’ble Mr. J. H.R. Malhotra.
15.07.2003
List again on 5th November, 2003 along with CWP
No.2890/95 & CWP No.5398/97.
Sd/-
MR. H.R. MALHOTRA. J.
05.11.2003
D.C.Maheshwari & Ors. PETITIONERS
Through Mr. Anil Aggarwal Advocate
Vs.
Registrar of Coop. Society Delhi RESPONDENTS

Through Mr. R.P. Bansal Sr. Advocate
with Mr. P.D. Sharma for R-3/Society.
Mr. Adil Alvi for R-6 to 8,10-15.
CORAM:
HMJ Dalveer Bhandari.
HMJ H.R. Malhotra.
ORDER/05.11.2003
The parties would be at liberty to complete the
pleadings within 4 weeks from today.
Mr. R.P. Bansal, Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the
society has filed written submissions. The petitioners and
other respondents would be at liberty to file written
submissions within 2 weeks from today.
List this matter for final disposal along with CWP
No.2890/95 & 5398/97 on 19.01.2004. File of CCP
No.309/95 be also sent to the Court on the N.D.O.H.
Sd/-
19.01.2004
Mr. S.S. Jain for petitioner No.1.
Mr. R.P.Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.D.
Sharma for respondent No.2.
Mr. Adil Alvi for respondents No.6 to 8, 10-15.
CW 3871/95
Renotify on 23rd March, 2004 along with CWP
No.5398/97.
Sd/-
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
23.03.2004

Mr. R.P. Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.D.
Sharma for the respondent No.2.
Mr. Adil Alvi for respondents No.6 to 8, 10-15.
WP(C) No.3871/91
Mr. Bansal says that let copy of the order of civil court
be given to him and payment be made petitioner to the
Society and on making payment to the society by the
petitioner the flat shall handed over to the petitioner.
Renotify on 28.7.2004.
Sd/-
28.07.2004
Present : Mr. Anil Aggarwal for petitioner.
Mr. R.P. Bansal Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.D.
Sharma for respondent No.2.
Ms. Charul Saini for respondent/DDR.
Mr. J.P.Gupta for Counsel for respondent.
Mr. R.K. Gupta for respondent.
WP(C) No.3871/91
Adjourned at request of Counsel for the parties to
27.09.2004.
Sd/-
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
27.09.2004
Present : Mr. Anil Aggarwal with Ms. Neelam Gupta for

petitioner.
Mr. R.P. Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh
Mahajan for respondent No.2.
Mr. C.Mohan Rao for DDA.
CM No.10675/01
It is contended that this application has become
infructuous as possession has been handed over by
Respondent-Society to petitioner No.12, Sudershan Kumari
on payment of Rs.1,46,650/- subject to adjustment.
Mr. Bansal says that his application may be disposed of
as possession has already been given.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
WP(C) 3871/91
Renotify on 11.01.2005.
Sd/-
MR. ANIL KUMAR. J.
11.01.2005
Present : Mr. Anil Aggarwal Jain for the petitioner.
Mr. R.P. Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh
Mahajan and Mr. Prabhat Ranjan for the
respondent. Mr. Rajesh Pathak for the DDA.
WP(C)No.3871/91
List along with WP(C) No.5398/1997 on 12.04.2005
Sd/-
MR. J.P. SINGH. J.
12.04.2005
D.C.Maheshwari ..PETITIONER
Through Mr. Anil Aggarwal with Mr. Satpal
Singh, Advocates.
Vs.
Registrar Coop. Society Delhi ..RESPONDENT
Through Mr. Rakesh Mahajan, Advocate for
R-1. Mr. Vaibhav Dang, Advocate for R-
7,10,11,12 and 15. Mr. C.Mohan Rao,
Advocate for DDA.
CORAM:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.A.Khan.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar.
Adjournment slip is circulated. List on 26.05.2005.
Sd/-
MR. B.A.KHAN. J.
MR. ANIL KUMAR. J.
12.08.2005
Present : Mr. S.S.Jain for the appellant.
Mr. R.P.Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh
Mahajan, Mr. P.D.Sharma and Mr. Prabhat
Ranjan for the respondent.
Mr. Vaibhav Dang for the respondent Nos.7,10,
11,12,13 to 15.
CM NO.6635/2005 with WP(C)NO.3871/1991

We have heard the matter. Initially the petitioner
has arrayed 17 members as petitioners.
To cut short the controversy and without prejudice
to the rights and contentions of the parties we have asked the
learned counsel for the petitioner as to who were the
members who were not allotted the flats.
Shri D.C.Maheshwari – petitioner No.1, Shri Ram
Pratap Goel – respondent No.2 has died. However, the legal
representatives have not been brought on record. The
application is pending. Notice Counsel for the respondent
accepts notice.
The legal representatives as taken on the
application be brought on record in place of petitioner No.2.
Petitioner No.3 is Shri R.K.Kothari. Petitioner No.4 is Shri
Prem Parkash Bansal. Petitioner No.6 is Shri Rich Pal Jain.
Petitioner No.10 is Shri Pawan Kumar Aggarwal and
petitioner No.13 is Shri Kanwar Sain Aggarwal who is stated
to have been allotted Flat No.45.
Learned counsel for the petitioner says that
subsequently, an amended memo of parties was filed. There
was, as a matter of fact, another amended memo of parties
filed by the petitioner in July, 1997. In that amended memo
of parties the names of the petitioners were up to serial
No.17, as in the original petition which was filed in the year
1991. It seems that during the pendency of the petition,
another amended memo of parties was filed on 28 th August,
2001, where the name of petitioner No.8 Smt. Shanta Ajmera,
petitioner No.19 Shri Narayan Prasad Mantri and petitioner
No.20 Shri Ratan Lal Jhawar were incorporated. We do not
want to pass any order in relation to these petitioners who
were subsequently brought on record after 10 years of filing of
the original petition which was filed in the year 1991. Their
action suffers from delay and latches and no good cause has
been shown in the application as to why these three
petitioners chose to wait for 10 years.
Mr. R.P. Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the

Society says that possession of alt No.601 has been given to
Shri D.C. Maheshwari – petitioner No.1. Shri Maheshwari is
present in Court. He says that he has not received the
possession of the aforementioned flat. The Society to explain
as to why the possession of Alt No.601 has not been given to
him and if the same is not been given, the same may be given
to him forthwith.
The possession of Flat No.502 be given to the legal
representatives of petitioner No.2. Possession of Flat No.704
be given to Shri R.K.Kothari – petitioner No.3. The possession
of Alt No.703 be given to Shri Richpal Jain – petitioner No.6.
Possession of Flat No.303 be given to Shri Pawan Kumar
Aggarwal – petitioner No.10. Let all the petitioners who have
been allotted these flats, pay to the Society a sum of Rs.8
Lacs after reconciliation of the amount which has already
been paid by the petitioner to the Society. That payment
shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the
parties, subject to the final consideration by this Court. The
amount shall be paid by the petitioners in terms of our order
passed above within a period of four weeks. Once, the
amount is paid to the Society, the Society will handover
forthwith the flats as stated above to the above petitioners.
In the meanwhile, the Society to calculate the
demand in relation to these flats and the same will be
brought on the next date of hearing in Court.
Sd/-
12.08.2005 MS. REKHA SHARMA. J.
14.09.2005
CM 11482/2005 in WP(C) No.3871/91

Notice be issued to the respondent/non-applicant,
returnable on 6.10.2005. DASTI.
Sd/-
MS. REKHA SHARMA. J.
INDEX - PART-I
1. CM 6180/97
Appliction U/O 1 Rule 10 for 1-19
impleadment of respondents.
2. Amended Memo of Parties. 20-26
3. List of Dates.
4. Amended Writ Petition. 219
INDEX - PART-II
1. Counter affidavit filed by 200-201

Respondent No.4.
(i) Annexure R-4/1
No Objection Certificate. 202
(ii) Annexure R-4/2
Complaint. 203-217
Affidavit in support of above. 218
2. Report of the Local Commissioner. 219-263
3. Counter affidavit on behalf of

Respondent No.11. 264-268
(i) Annexure R-11/1
Copy of letter No.F.25(39)-
HBA/Accts./CST 89-90 dt.25.10.90 269-271
sanctioning loan to R-11 for
Payment to the Society.

Respondents No.7,10,12 to 15. 272-275

Respondent No.5 with Annexure R1 276-294
& R2.
i)Counter affidavit to CM 3861/92. 295-300
ii)Counter affidavit CM 4034/92. 301-303
iii)Application u/S 340 R/w 195
as CM No.4432/92 for initiating 304-307
proceedings against petitioners.
6. Reply on behalf of Respondent No.9. 308-318

i) Annexure-1 (Colly.)
True copy of possession slip 319-321
NOC & No Dues Certificate.
ii) ANNEXURE-II
True copy of letter dt.4.9.91. 322
iii) Annexure-III
True copy of Notice dt.18.11.91. 323
iv) Annexure-IV
True copy of reply above notice 324
Dt.20.11.91.
v) Annexure-V
True copy of share certificate. 325
7. Rejoinder affidavit to the counter 326-331

affidavit filed by R-7,10,12 to 15.
8. Rejoinder affidavit to the counter 332-341

affidavit filed by respondent No.11.
9. Counter affidavit on behalf of 342-349

respondent No.1 & 2.
i) Annexure-R-1
Inquiry report. 350-359
ii) Annexure-R-2
Order of suspension. 360-361
iii) Annexure-R-3
Order of the Lt. Governor. 362-363
iv) Annexure-R-4
Order of the High Court. 364-368
v) Annexure-R-5
List of Record handedover. 369-376
10. Index 377

Rejoinder on behalf of petitioner
to the Counter affidavit filed by 378-404
Respondent No.5.
i) Annexure-PC-1
List of Flats which were subject
to draw of lots but possession 405
not handed over.
INDEX - PART-III
1. Documents filed by Counsel for

Respondents No.1 & 2.
i. Order dt.07.04.93 passed in 406-407
case No.257/89.
ii. Order dt.22.08.93 passed in 408-409
case No.258/89.
iii. Order dt.22.8.93 passed in 410-412
case No.283/89.
iv. Order dt.22.8.93 passed in
case No.255/89,256/89,259/89, 413-415
260/89,263/89,264/89,268/89,
269/89.
2. CM No.8409/93 (filed on 9.11.93)

i. Application on behalf of 416-421
petitioners U/S 151 CPC.
ii. Affidavit in support of 422
application.
iii. Annexure-X-1
Copy of list of members on the 423-432
draw of lots with typed copy.
iv. Annexure-X-2
Copy of list of 82 members of 433--440
the Society along with typed copy.
3. Reply on behalf of Respondent No.9 441-445

to the application U/S 151 CPC with
affidavit and UPC receipt.
4. CMP No.5481/94 (filed on 8.7.94)
Application u/S 151 CPC by 446-451
respondent No.5 with affidavit.
5. CM No.8128/94
Applicatin U/O 1 Rule 10(2) CPC 452-456
R/W Section 151 CPC with affidavit
on behalf of Anil Kumar.
i. Annexure-A
True copy of payment receipts 457-462
and challan.
ii. Annexure-B
Copy of handing over of possession 463
letter dt.15.6.90.
6. Reply on behalf of Respondent No.3 to 464-475

the writ petition.
i. Annexure R-1
Crtified copy of list of members. 76-483
ii. Annexure-R-2
Confirmation of vacant flats 484
Letter dt.9.5.93.
7. Reply on behalf of the petitioner 485-489

to CM 5481/94 filed by respondent
No.5.
i. Affidavit in support of reply. 490
ii. Annexure-R-A(Colly.)
Documents regarding possession. 491-496
8. CM 1693/96 (filed on 26.2.96)

Application u/o 22 Rule 1,2 & 3 507-509
CPC on behalf of LR’s of deceased
Anil Kumar Aggarwal for substitution
with affidavit.
9. CM 3046/96
Application filed by Wd/O Anil Aggarwal Not
for handing over the possession. numbered
10. Affidavit in support of reply

dt.19.7.95 filed by Sh. Om Parkash --do--
Aggarwal President of the Society/R-3.
i. Annexure-R-1
Copy of complaint.
ii. Annexure-R-2
Copy of order in CW 2890/95
dt.8.8.95.
(internal page no.1 to 9)
11. Report of the Local Commissioner --do-

Shri Arvind Nigam along with documents.
12. List of persons who are owners --do--

occupants of flats filed by
Shri Kirti Uppal Advocate for
Respondent No.3 on 29.7.97.
WP(C) NO. 3871 OF 1991
IN THE MATTER OF:
Versus
BRIEF SYNOPSIS/CLAIM ON BEHALF OF SMT. SHANTA
AJMERA/PETITIONER NO.18 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED AS
CLAIMANT).
IN THE MATTER OF:
WP(CIVIL) NO. 2890 OF 1995
Maitri Nagar Co-op. Group Housing Society Ltd.

..PETITIONER
Versus
Shri Mehar Chand Jain & Ors. ..RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Smt. Baldei W/O Shri Zile Singh, aged about 60

years, R/O House No.195, Village & Post Office Ghoga, Delhi-
110039.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and

state as under:
1. That the husband of the deponent namely Shri Zile
Singh was arrayed in the above noted petition as
Respondent No.4 by seeking the amendment in the writ
petition vide application dt.12.12.2000. The husband of
the deponent has expired on 13.12.2000 leaving behind
the deponent being wife, daughters namely Smt. Meena
& Smt. Santosh (both married). However, the petitioner
did not moved any application to bring the deponent
and the daughters being L.Rs of the Respondent No.4.
2. That the deponent is an illiterate lady and had come to
know regarding pendency of the present petition only on
20th October 2007 from Shri R.P. Jain, a friend of the

husband of the deponent and is now conversant with
the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. That the deponent is fully conversant with the facts of
the case and is competent to swear with this affidavit for
and on behalf of herself as well as on behalf of the other
applicants/daughters.
4. That the accompanying application under Section 151
CPC has been drafted by our Counsel as per our
instructions and the same has been read over and
explained to me in Hindi and I say that the contents of
the same are true and correct to my knowledge.
5. That the contents of the accompanying application are
not being reproduced here for the sake of brevity and to
avoid the repetition, the contents of the accompanying
application may kindly be read as a part of the present
affidavit.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:
Verified at Delhi on this day of October 2007, that

the contents of paras No.1 to 5 of the above affidavit are true
and correct to my knowledge.
DEPONENT
Vol.II
(Page Nos.201 - 405)
1. Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of R-4 201-201A

Annexure R-4/1 – N.O.C. 202
Annexure R-4/2 Complaint 203-217
Affidavit in support of above 218
2. Report of Local Commissioner 219-223

Annexure I –
Letter of Intimation dt.8.6.92 224-227
Annexure II
Rough Report 228-236
Annexure III 237
Rough Site Plan
Annexure IV
Detailed reportof inspection 238-257
Annexure V
Discrepancy Statement 258
Annexure VI
Statement of un-occupied flats 259-262
Annexure VII
Statement of Shri Anand Jain 263
Annexure VIII
sealed envelop of negatives --
3. Counter Affidavit on behalf of Resp.11 264-268

in reply to Show-cause to the writ petition.
Annexure R-II/1
Copy of letter dated 25.10.90 269-271
sanctioning loan to the respondent
No.11 for Rs.1,81,250/- for pay to
Society.
4. Counter Affidavit on behalf of Resp.

No.7, 10, 12 to 15. 272-275
5. Counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No.5 276-294

to writ petition.
Counter affidavit by Respondent No.5 to C.M.

No.3861/92 dt.18.5.92. 295-300
Counter affidavit by Respondent No.5 to C.M.

No.4034/92 dt.26.5.92. 301-303
Application by Respondent No.5. 304-307

6. Reply by Respondent No.9. 308-318
Annexure I
copies of possession slip, NOC,NDC. 319-321
Annexure II
copy of Letter dt.4.9.91 322
Annexure III
copy of notice dt.18.11.91. 323
Annexure IV
copy of reply of above notice Dt.20.11.91. 324
Annexure V
copy of share certificate. 325
7. Rejoinder/affidavit by Respondent No
7, 10, 12 to 15. 326-331
Annexure PC-1 332
list of flats subject to draw of lots Held on 10.8.88.
8. Rejoinder/affidavit to counter affidavit by 333-341

Respondent No.11.
9. Counter affidavit by Respondent No.1 & 2. 342-349

Annexure R-1 inquiry report. 350-359
Annexure R-II order of suspension. 360-361
Annexure R-III L.G. order. 362-363
Annexure R-IV High Court Order. 364-368
Annexure R-V records handed over on 15.12.91. 369-376
Memo of appearance.
10. Rejoinder on behalf of petitioner to the Counter 377-404

Affidavit by respondent No.5.
Annexure PC-1 405
VOL.III
(Page Nos.406 - 780)
1. Order of L.G. P.K.Dave dt.7.4.93. 406-407
2. Order of L.G. N.C.Goyal dt.22.8.93. 408-409
3. Order of L.G. Santosh/Savitri. 410-412
4. Order of L.G. other 8 petitioners (Mehar) 413-415
5. C.M. No.8409/1993 with Annexures. 416-440
6. Reply on behalf of Respondent No.9 441-446

to C.M.No.8409.
7. Application on behalf of Respondent No.5. 447-451
8. Application U/O 1 R.10(2) r/w Sec. 151 CPC 452-463
9. Reply by Respondent No.3 to writ petition. 464-484
10. Reply to C.M. No.5481/94 by Respondent No.5. 485-496
11. Application under section Order 22 Rule 1 & 2 & 497-506

3 C.P.C. for sub.
12. C.M. No.1693/95 with affidavit. 507-509
13. C.M. No.3046/96 510-516

Annexures 517-531
14. Affidavit in support of reply dt.19.7.95 filed 532-540

By Om Prakash Aggarwal/President of Society-R3.
15. Report of Arvind K. Nigam appoint vide order 541-551

Dt.2.9.96.
16. List of persons who are owners/occupants of the 552-556

Flats of Maitri Nagar as on dt.29.7.97 by Kirti
Uppal.
17. Application Under Order 1 Rule 10 & Order 6 557-775

Rule 17 C.P.C. on behalf of petitioner with
Amended Writ Petition.
18. Reply to Application filed by petitioner on behalf 776-780

of Respondent No.3/Society.
Vol.VI
(Page Nos.1525-1818)
I.
a. Objection on behalf of Shri Mehar Chand Jain 1525-1566
(M.No.73-A) to the Status Report filed by Society
along with affidavit.
b. Annexure-1 (true copy of list of flats-unauthorised 1567
occupied by members or Managing Committee).
c. Annexure-2 (true copy of letter dt.4.12.03 of the office 1568
of Registrar of Coop. Societies).
d. Vakalatnama.
II.
a. Claim/Brief Synopsis. (M.No.73-A). 1569-1576
b. Annexure C-1 1577-1580
True copy of order dt.01.06.88 of L.G.
c. Annexure C-2 dated 9.12.88 of L.G. 1581-1587
d. Annexure C-3 dated 10.8.88 by DDA - Draw of 1588-1593

Allotment.
e. Anneuxre C-4 dated 27.09.88 of Registrar Coop. 1594-1606

Societies.
f. Annexure C-5 dated 20.08.93 of Lt. Governor. 1607-1611
g. Annexure C-6 dated 15.6.94 of Registrar Coop. 1612-1621

Societies.
h. Annexure C-7 dated 20.9.94 of Financial 1622-1627

Commissioner.
i. Annexure C-8 Audit report of 87-88 & 88-89. 1628-1631
j. Annexure C-9 1632-1641

copy of minutes dt.02.3.88
with true English Translation.
k. Annexure C-10 order dated 4.12.03 of R.C.S. 1642
l. Annexure C-11 copy of status report of RCS. 1643-1648
m. Annexure C-12 1649-1651

true copy of list of persons claimed and
enrolled and payment by them filed by Society
with reply in W.P.(C) No.5398/97 as Annexure R-2.
n. Annexure C-13 ` 1652

Receipt and payment account of Society …..
01.9.00 to 11.03.01.
o. Annexure C-14 letter dated 27.11.95 of Society. 1653
q. Annexure C-15 C.M. No.309/2001 filed by 1654-1658
Anand Jain.
r. Annexure C-16 dt.26.9.92. 1659-1684
s. Annexure C-17 dt.19.3.99 in CWP No.2402/98. 1685-1693
III.
a. Claim/brief …… by claimant Santosh Jain (M.No.35-B)
and through legal heirs Savitri Devi Jain. 1694-1703
b. Annexure C1 – Order dated 01.06.88 of L.G. 1704-1709
c. Annexure C2 – Order dated 09.12.88 of L.G. 1710-1714
d. Annexure C3 – Draw of allotment dated 10.08.88. 1715-1720

by DDA.
e. Annexure C4 – Order dated 27.09.88. 1721-1733
f. Annexure C5 – Order dated 22.08.93. 1734-1740
g. Annexure C6 – Order dated 15.06.94. 1741-1746
h. Annexure C7 – Order dated 20.09.94 of Financial 1747-1752

Commissioner.
i. Annexure C8 – relevant pages of audit reports. 1753-1756
j. Annexure C9 – Minutes of meeting dated 02.03.88. 1757-1766
k. Annexure C10 – Letter dated 04.12.03 1767
l. Annexure C11 Status Report. 1768-1773
m. Annexure C12 persons claimed and enrolled 1774-1777

and payment made by them filed by Societies.
n. Annexure C13 Receipt and payment account of

dt.01.04.2000 to 11.3.2001. 1778
o. Annexure C14 Letter dt.27.11.95 of Society 1779
p. Annexure C15 C.M. No.309/01 filed by Mr. Anand 1780-1783

Jain.
q. Annexure C16 Report of Local Commissioner

dated 26.09.92. 1784-1809
r. annexure C17 Order dated 19.3.99 in W.P.(C) No.

2402/1998. 1810-1818
Vol.VII
(Page Nos.1819-2072)
1. Objections to the status report filed by R-3 with 1819-1831
Annexure AA
copy of minues of meeting dt.2.3.88. 1832-1839
Annexure BB
copy of Assessment letter addressed to 1840-1842
Shri sushil Kumar Chaddha being the owner of
Flat No.601, Maitri Appartment, Plot No.29, Sec.-9,
Rohini, Delhi.
Annexure CC
copy of Notice dt.2.1.07. 1843
2. Objection to the status report filed by R-1 1844-1856

Registrar of Coop. societies with Annexures.
Annexure AA
copy of minutes of meeting dt.2.3.88 1857-1864
Annexure BB
Annexure CC
copy of minutes of meeting dt.2.3.88 1868
3. Short synopsis on behalf of Shri Rajesh Banga 1869-1879

Claiming under Respondent No.38 with annexures.
Annexure AA
Annexure BB
Annexure CC
Annexure DD
copy of receipt dt.12.3.88. 1893
Annexure EE
copy of affidavit dt.17.8.05 given by 1894-1895
Shri Sushil Chaddha.
Annexure FF-Colly.
Copies of documents showing Possession 1896-2040
house receipts issued by MCD to Shri Rajesh.
4. Affidavit of Shri Anand Jain. 2041-2044
5. Report of Arvind K. Nigam (Advocate) Court 2045-2072

Commissioner appointed vide order dt.10.5.07.
Vol.VIII
(Page Nos.2073-2347)
1.
a. Objections/affidavit on behalf of R-3 Society to 2073-2099
the report of the Court Commissioner.
b. Annexure A. 2100-2153
c. Annexure B (Report of S.R. Sharma dt.6.6.88). 2154-2170
d. Receipt of cost.
II.
a. Objection by and on beyhalf of Respondent No.38 2171-2183
Shri Rajesh Banga to the report of the Court
Commissioner Shri Arvind K. Nigam Advocate
Appointed by this Hon’ble Court vide order
Dated 10.5.2007.
b. Annexure AA (Meeting dated 2.3.88). 2184-2191
c. Annexure BB (copy of the assessment letter addressed 2192-2194

to Shri Sushil Kumar Chaddha being the owners of
Flat No.601…… Delhi-85.
d. Annexure CC (copy of the Notice dt.2.01.07.) 2195-2196
III.
a. Objection on behalf of objection 22 members of Maitri 2197-2283
Nagar Coop. Group Housing society who were enrolled
On 2.3.88 of his membership of 27 members of the
Society was ceased with Annexures and affidavits.
b. Affidavits of K.C. Aggarwal (Respondent No.11), 2284-2305

(R-12) Jagbir Singh, Jaishri Garg (R-16), G.K.Sharma
R-18, Akshaya Dogra R-14, Banwari Lal Sharma R-19,
Promilla Aggarwal R-20, T.K. Gupta R-21, Rakesh
Bhasin R-24, Parveen Singla R-25, Bhupinder Singh
Sain R-27, Arun Singh R-29, Hari Raj Pal R-30,
Baljinder Kochadha R-31, Trilochan Kaur R-15,
Laxmi Devi Madan R-32, K.M.Tanwar R-33,
Kirpa Ram Punia R-34, Manju Singla R-35, Bimla
Devi R-36, Indresh Aggarwal R-13, Umang Sahai
Aggarwal R-10.
V.
a. Affidavit by and on behalf of Respondent No.38 i.e. 2306-2307
Shri Rajesh Banga in compliance of Hon’ble Courts
Order dasted 22.10.88.
VI.
a. Reply on behalf of the respondent No.3 Society to 2308-2314
the C.M. No.13355 of 2005 with affidavit.
VII.
a. Rejoinder on behalf of the applicants with affidavits 2315-2330
of the petitioners No.18,19 & 20.
b. Certified copy of the order/judgment dt.17.04.09 in 2331-2343

W.P.(C) No.2890/95.
c. Certified copy of the order/judgment dt.17.04.09 2344-2347

in W.P.(C) No.5398 of 97.
PART – I
(Page Nos.1 – 200F)
Report of Court Commissioner Arvind K. Nigam

Advocate appoint vide order dt.10.5.07. 35
W.P.(C) No.3871/91. 1-158
Affidavit in reply to the directions dt.16.12.91

(S.L.Tavi). 159-168
C.M. No.3861/92 on behalf of petitioner U/S 151 CPC. 169-194
C.M. No.4034/92. 195-199
Amended Memo of Parties. 200-200F ***

Vol.IV
(Page Nos.781 - 1295)
1. Reply on behalf of R-38. 781-785
2. Counter affidavit on behalf of R-19 to W.P.(C) 786-803

Annexure-1
copy of Membership Receipt
Dt.10.03.88 and share certificate dt.9.4.88. 804-805
Annexure-2
Copy of letter of draw dt.10.4.90. 806-807
Annexure-3
Copy of allotment dt.1.5.90. 808
Annexure-4
Copy of possession slip dt.12.8.90. 809
Annexure-5 810
Annexure-6
Copyof No Due Certificate. 811-812
Annexure-7
Copy of no objection certificate issued 813
by society for installation of permanent/temporary
electric connection.
Annexure-8
Copy of Rationcard with electricity 814-821
Bills and Gas connection receipts issued in
year 1988.
Annexure-L
Copy of FIR lodged dt.2.4.94 822
registered misplace of receipts.
Annexure-M
copy of Societies letter through its
Secretary regarding payment. 823
Annexure-N 824-825
Copy of Society Certificate dt.26.10.95 through
its President Sh. O.P.Aggarwal regarding payment.
Annexure-O 826-827
Copy of letter dt.01.11.95 of the Society
(Ref. No.MN/2003/95-96).
Annexure-P 828
Copy of letter dt.17.11.1995 of the Society.
Annexure-Q 829-830
Copy of certificate issued by the Societies Welfare
Association dt.23.12.1995.
Annexure-R 831-834
Copy of letter dt.15.04.1996 of the Societies
regarding regularization of draw of allotments.
Annexure-S
Copy of President of Societies letter dt.3.10.96 835-836
to the DDA regarding recommendation of answering
respondent.
Annexure-V
Copy of DDA’s letter dt.06.12.1996 to the Society 837
President as well as the answering respondent.
Annexure-W
Copy of Societies letter dt.26.12.96 regarding 838-839
regularization of draw.
Annexure-X
Copy of telephone Bill of the answering respondent 840
installed in the Flat in question.
Annexure-Y
Copy of electricity bill of the answering respondent. 841
Annexure-Z
Copy of House-Tax Assessment of the MCD in the 842-845
name of the answering respondent.
Annexure-Z1
Copy of answering respondent’s present address- 846-848
Ration-Card.
3. Counter Affidavit on behalf of Respondent No.16, 849-862

18, 21, 21, 24, 25, & 28 to 36 with Annexures.
4. Annexure R-25/1
Photocopy of the charge of the membership. 863-866
5. Annexure R-25/2
Photocopy of the order dt.24.02.1988. 867
6. Annexure R-25/3
Photocopy of the payment made by the answering 868-870
Respondents.
7. Annexure R-25/4
Photocopy of the list of members as on 30.06.87 and 871-874
Payment made by them.
8. Annexure R-25/5
Photocopy of the order dt.27.09.89. 875-885
9. Annexure R-25/6
10. Annexure R-25/7

Photocopy of the order dt.22.08.93 passed by 891-894
Lt. Governor.
11. Annexure R-25/8
12. Annexure R-25/9

Photocopy of the Circular dt.16.12.92. 900
13. Annexure R-25/10

Photocopy of the order dt.15.06.94 passed by Registrar 901-912
Cooperative Societies.
14. Annexure R-25/11

Photocopy of the order dt.29.09.94 passed by 913-919
Financial Commissioner.
15. C.M. No.10150/2000 by Respondent No.5. 920-925

Application U/Sec. 151 CPC for early hearing
of Writ.
16. C.M. No.309/2001 by Respondent No.5. 926-930

Application U/Sec. 151 CPC for settlement.
17. Affidavit of Banwari Lal Sharma. 931-936
18. Annexure A
List of 10 members showing the payment made so far. 937
19. Annexure B
Notice dt.19.02.2001 regarding meeting of the Managing 938-945
Committee with resolution passed by, 25.02.2001 with
English translation.
20. Notice dt.01.03.2001 for calling of General Body Meeting 946-969

On 18.03.2001 with resolution and English translation.
21. Copy of result of Election held on 12.03.2000. 970
22. Copy of the resolution dt.25.02.2001 sent to Registrar & 971-975

letter of information to the members.
23. Annexure C
Copy of Circular dt.03.01.2001 regarding eligibility of 976
Members of Group Housing Society.
24. Copy of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme 977-981

Reported in DLT 74 (1998).
25. Copy of Notice U/Sec. 83(2) of the Delhi Cooperative 982-988

Society Act for initiating proceedings against Mr. Anand
Jain & Mr. Shyam Lal Jain, Respondent No.5 & 9 for
non production of full records.
26. Application on behalf of L.R’s of petitioner No.2. 989-994

U/O 22 Rule 3 CPC along with affidavit.
27. C.M. No.7092/2001 U/O 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 995-1004
151 C.P.C. on behalf of Shasnta Ajmera, N.P.
Mantri & Ratan Lal Jhanwar to permit them to
join the proceedings along with affidavits.
28. C.M. No.10675/2001 by Sudershan Kumari for 1005-1014

Direction to Respondent No.3 to handover the
Possession of Flat No.602.
29. Application U/Sec. 151 CPC for diposal of the 1015-1017

the application filed by the applicant for
substitution of L.Rs. CM No.6633 of 2005.
30. C.M. No.10111/2005 by Rajesh Banga Under 1018-1023

Order 1 Rule 10 for modification of order
Dated 12.08.2005.
31. Annexure ‘A’

Receipt dt.12.03.88 by Sushil Kumar Chaddha for 1024
Rs.75,000/-.
32. Annexure ‘A2’

Affidavit of petitioner No.38. 1025-1026
33. Annexure ‘A3’

Documents showing possession 1027-1057
(Telephone shift, electricity meter, maintenance
Charges etc.).
34. C.M. No.11482/2005 by petitioners No.2, 3, 4 for 1058-1069

Correction of order dt.12.08.05.
35. House Tax Receipts by MCD & Respondent No.3. 1070-1184

Maintenance charges receipt by Respondent No.3.
Miscellaneous Utility receipts filed by Rajesh Banga.
36. C.M. No.13354/2005 for recalling of order 1185-1240

dt.12.8.05 by petitioners No.18, 19 & 20 (including
annexures).
37. Reply by petitioner No.1 to application Under 1241-1290

Order 1 Rule 10 CM No.10111/2005 application
filed by Rajesh Banga for impleadment of
modification of order dt.12.08.2005.
38. C.M. No.10111/2005 – 1291-1295
Reply by Respondent No.3.
Vol.V
(Page Nos.1296 - 1524)
1. Status Report of Respondent No.3 vide order 1296-1457

Dated 6.9.06 with Annexures by Advocate
Rakesh Mahajan.
2. C.M. No.13880/2006 by Respondent No.7, 10-15 1458-1469

Under Chapter-V Rule 5 of Delhi High Court (OS)
Rules 1967 r/w Section 151 C.P.C.
3. Status Report by Kamal Deep in respect of 1470-1474

Society.
4. Rejoinder to reply by Respondent No.3 to 1475-1499

C.M. No.10111/2005 with Annexures.
5. Rejoinder to reply by petitioner No.1 to 1500-1524

C.M. No.10111/2005 with Annexures.
CS(OS) 1539/2011
SANJEEV GUPTA ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr. Manoj Sharma and Mr. Pankaj Yadav, Advs.
versus
K.L.GUPTA and ORS ..... Defendant
Through Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, Adv. for D-1 to 3
Mr. N.K. Jha, Adv.for D-4 and 5
Mr. S.S. Bawa, Adv. for D-1to3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
ORDER
20.03.2012
IA No. 747/2012(order 6 Rule 17 r/w S.151)

ORDER
20.03.2012
IA No. 747/2012(order 6 Rule 17 r/w S.151)
By this application under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC the
plaintiff seeks to amend the plaint in terms of para 7 of
the application.
Mr. Satinder Singh, counsel for the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 seeks
some more time to file the reply.
Mr. N.K. Jha, Adv. appearing for defendants No. 4 and 5 on the other
hand states that he has no objection to the amendment being sought
by the plaintiff in the present application.
Mr. S.S. Bawa, Adv. appearing for defendants No. 1 to 3 states

that the plaintiff himself has given no objection for the execution of
the sale deed. Counsel also submits that already defendants have
raised the objection in the written statement.
The present suit filed by the plaintiff is at the initial stage as

the parties have yet to enter trial of the case. The plaintiff is seeking
the said amendment on the same cause of action and the facts pleaded
by the plaintiff in the plaint.
For the reasons stated in the application, the amendment as prayed

in the application is allowed.
Amended plaint be filed within a period of two weeks. On filing of

the amended plaint, written statement to the amended plaint may be
filed within a period of four weeks, thereafter.
List the matter for completion of pleadings before the Joint

Registrar on 18th July, 2012.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
MARCH 20, 2012

Annexure - Rattan Lal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Annexure - Rattan Lal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annexure - Rattan Lal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mrs. Kamla Ajmera, Dated: 02.06.

UNIT : HUDCO – 15% infrastructure bonds Series-I.

I am enclosing herewith the following documents with the request

1. Original Bond Certificate – Folio No.IB 5961 – 15 numbers

5. The un encashed Dividend warrant for Rs.1125/- and for

Yours truly, Signature of Mrs. Kamla Ajmera attested

Bank’s Stamp & Signature

C.W.P. No. OF 2001

IN THE MATTER OF:

P.L.Ajmera, 27 Chitrakut Apartment, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi110032.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as

is competent to file the present affidavit.

2. That the accompanying writ petition Under Article 226 of The

Constitution of India has been drafted by our Counsel as per our

true and correct to my knowledge.

reproduced herewith for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition.

C.W.P. No. OF 2001

IN THE MATTER OF:

Shri P.L.Ajmera, 27 Chitrakut Apartment, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi110032.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as

and is competent to file the present affidavit.

2. That the accompanying writ petition Under Article 226 of The

Constitution of India has been drafted by our Counsel as per our

true and correct to my knowledge.

reproduced herewith for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition.

IN THE MATTER OF:

P.L.Ajmera, 27 Chitrakut Apartment, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi110032.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as

is competent to file the present affidavit.

2. That the accompanying application Under Section 151 C.P.C. for

grant of exemption from filing the certified copies of the annexures

contents of the said accompanying application are true and correct

3. That the contents of the accompanying application are not being

reproduced herewith for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition.

IN THE MATTER OF:

Shri P.L.Ajmera, 27 Chitrakut Apartment, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi110032.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as

is competent to file the present affidavit.

2. That the accompanying application Under Section 151 C.P.C. for

grant of exemption from filing the certified copies of the annexures

contents of the said accompanying application are true and correct

3. That the contents of the accompanying application are not being

reproduced herewith for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition.

IN THE MATTER OF:

P.L.Ajmera, 27 Chitrakut Apartment, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi110032.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as

is competent to file the present affidavit.

2. That the accompanying application Under Section 151 C.P.C. for

grant of Stay has been drafted by our Counsel as per our

I say that the contents of the said accompanying application are

true and correct to my knowledge.

3. That the contents of the accompanying application are not being

reproduced herewith for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition.

IN THE MATTER OF:

Shri P.L.Ajmera, 27 Chitrakut Apartment, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi110032.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as

is competent to file the present affidavit.

2. That the accompanying application Under Section 151 C.P.C. for