Managing Committee Amit Cooperative Group Housing Society and Another vs Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others

Vipin Sanghi, J.

C.M. No. 10349/2012 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 5048/2012

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred on behalf of the managing committee Amit Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited by Sh. D.R. Roy, who claims to be the President of the said managing committee. Sh. D.R. Roy is petitioner No. 2 in this petition, who has appeared in person and has argued the case. The petitioner in this writ petition has made various prayers including the setting aside of the orders dated 10.12.2010 passed by the Financial Commissioner in Case No. 391/2010-CA, being revision proceedings u/s 116 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 (the Act) and the order dated 15.11.2011 passed by the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal in Appeal No. 216/2009 and 64/2011.

We have heard petitioner no. 2 in person who has not been able to state, despite repeated opportunities, as to what is his grievance, and what are the grounds for assailing the impugned orders. We even advised petitioner no. 2 to engage a counsel looking to his inability to argue his case. But he has chosen not to do so, and has preferred to proceed on his own.

On a reading of the petition and from whatever we could make out from the petitioners submission, it appears that the elections to the managing committee of the Amit Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited (Society) were held on 25.01.2009. The term of office of the office bearers elected to the said managing committee was three years. It appears that the requisite number of members (i.e. 22 out of 49 members), which constituted more than 1/5th of the total membership of the society, demanded the holding of a Special General Body Meeting (SGBM) to express no confidence in the managing committee headed by petitioner No. 2. However, the management of the said society did not oblige by calling SGBM. Consequently, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS), upon being approached, issued an order on 12.11.2009 for holding the SGBM.

Sh. S.S. Mandal was appointed as the observer on behalf of the RCS. However, the SGBM was not convened and thereafter another order was passed on 25.02.2010 by the RCS directing the committee to convene the SGBM on 07.03.2010. Sh. Shailesh Gupta was appointed to represent the RCS in the said meeting. Eventually, the SGBM was held on 07.03.2010 and a no confidence motion was passed against the managing committee in the said meeting. The SGBM also elected five members as members of the ad-hoc committee, which was approved by the RCS vide letter dated 29.03.2010.

The petitioners then preferred W.P.(C.) No. 4482/2010 before this Court to assail the calling of the SGBM and the outcome thereof. However, it appears that this petition was eventually rejected on 11.11.2010, leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue the alternate efficacious statutory remedy of revision available to them.

Consequently, it appears that the petitioners preferred the aforesaid revision petition u/s 116 of the Act in Case No. 391/10-CA, which too has been dismissed. The Financial Commissioner held that the petitioners did not impugn the direction issued by the RCS on 12.11.2009, as well as the subsequent order dated 25.02.2010, directing the calling of the SGBM of the society. In fact, the then managing committee obeyed the said orders and called for the SGBM on 07.03.2010. Having complied with the said orders, it was not open for the petitioners to assail the decision of the RCS to call for the SGBM, only because the no confidence motion against the managing committee was successfully passed in the said meeting.

The submission of the petitioner Mr. Roy is that no agenda for the SGBM of 07.03.2010 was circulated and that the no confidence motion against the committee could not be considered in the said meeting, without a specific agenda to that effect.

We find from the impugned order itself that the SGBM was called for by the 22 out of 49 members precisely for the reason that they desired to pass a no confidence motion against the then existing managing committee. Therefore, it could not be said that the members of the managing committee or the members of the society did not have notice of the item to be discussed in the SGBM, as the precise reason for calling the said meeting was to consider the issue whether the general body members had confidence in the managing committee, or not. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order passed by the Financial Commissioner in the aforesaid revision proceedings.

It appears the petitioners also sought to raise the issue of the eligibility of the newly enrolled members before the Financial Commissioner. The learned Financial Commissioner held that the said issue did not lie within his revisional jurisdiction. It appears the petitioners then preferred a claim petition u/s 70 of the Act before the Joint Registrar (Arbitration). The petitioners sought initiation of arbitration to assail the membership of the newly enrolled members. This petition was filed by the petitioners claiming to represent the managing committee of the Society through its President Sh. D.R. Roy. The locus standi of Sh. D.R. Roy to file the said petition was assailed on the ground that he could not claim himself to be the President of the managing committee of the Society, as the said managing committee had been dislodged in the SGBM held on 07.03.2010.

The Joint Registrar (Arbitration) vide order dated 08.04.2011 upheld this preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition u/s 70 of the Act at the behest of the petitioners, and dismissed the same as not being maintainable on 07.04.2011. The appeals preferred by the petitioners, once again in the name of the managing committee of the Society through its President Sh. D.R. Roy have been dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 15.11.2011 passed by the DCT, holding that Sh. Roy has no locus standi to represent the managing committee of the Society and, therefore, even the said appeals were incompetent.

The submission of the petitioner no. 2 Sh. Roy is that since the removal of the erstwhile managing committee by the SGBM itself was illegal, he continued to remain the President of the said managing committee and was, therefore, competent to file the arbitration petition u/s 70 of the Act as well as the appeals before the DCT.

We do not find any merit in this submission. Firstly, the managing committee of which the petitioner no. 2 was the President was dislodged by the special general body in its meeting held on 07.03.2010 in the presence of the observer of the RCS. The petitioners did not assail the orders directing the calling of the said SGBM. It is only when they found that they have been dislodged by the no confidence motion in the said SGBM, they had sought to assail the orders of the RCS directing the holding of the meeting. Moreover, the agenda for the SGBM was only one, i.e. to consider whether the general body has confidence in the managing committee. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was non compliance of any statutory provision of the Act in the calling of the SGBM or in passing the resolution expressing no confidence in the then existing managing committee.

Secondly, the term of the managing committee, of which the petitioner no. 2 claimed himself to be the President was, at the most, three years, which, in any event, expired on 24.01.2012. Consequently, the petitioner no. 2 has no locus standi to file the present petition by claiming himself to represent the managing committee as its President. We find no merit in this petition and accordingly dismiss the same.

C.M. No. 10350/2012 (for stay)

In view of the aforesaid, no orders are called for in this application. Application stands disposed of.