Membership Starts Only When Application Is Accepted Says Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a writ petition challenging plot allotment in a cooperative society case.

The Petitioner had filed the Writ Petition seeking setting aside of an order passed by the Financial Commissioner in a Revision Petition as well as an order passed by the Assistant Registrar, office of Registrar, Cooperative Societies whereby the name of Respondent no.5 was forwarded for holding the draw of lots for allotment of the subject matter plot. The Writ Petition further seeks a direction to Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to allot the plot in favour of Petitioner based on seniority and to maintain status quo in respect of Plot no.169, Guru Hari Kishan Nagar, New Delhi-110087

The Petitioner claims membership seniority from the original application date of 30.09.1973, arguing that the precedent in the S.K. Gambhir case supports seniority based on application submission. A receipt dated 23.11.1973, showing payment of share money by the Petitioner’s mother, is cited as proof of compliance, with this date marking effective membership. In line with the Managing Committee's Resolution dated 12.09.1981, the Petitioner alleges they paid the required land money, admission fee, share money, and interest for the plot. Thereafter the membership came to be transferred in the name of the Petitioner from his mother. Additionally, a seniority list published on 22.05.2000 ranking the Petitioner as No. 1 and Respondent No. 5 as No. 5, which the Petitioner contends reflects true seniority. The Petitioner asserts that despite this, the Assistant Registrar, RCS office, forwarded Respondent No. 5's name for plot allotment via mini draw on 31.01.2012.

Petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the said allotment in favour of the Respondent No. 5 but the same was dismissed directing him to avail the remedy of filing a revision before the Financial Commissioner. The Petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the Financial Commissioner and the same was dismissed on merit. 

It was highlighted that the Petitioner’s documents, specifically the receipt dated 23.11.1973 is forged and tampered with and is not present in the society’s official records. Additionally, a Crime Branch investigation concluded that the Petitioner’s receipt was issued to another individual. She argues that these findings invalidate the Petitioner’s claim to an earlier membership date and seniority.

It was argued that Receipt No. 5195 was never issued in the name of Smt. Surjeet Kaur, the Petitioners mother but rather to Ms. Vidya Bhatia. The daybook records from Respondent No. 3/Society were cited to show that Smt. Surjeet Kaur was only a transferee, not the original applicant. The Inquiry Report further notes that membership was transferred from Ms. Vidya Bhatia to Smt. Surjeet Kaur through Voucher No. 850 dated 20.02.1974.

It was pointed out that as per the findings by the authorities that, as of the society’s 1981 seniority list, the Respondent No. 5 held a higher rank (S. No. 7) than the Petitioner (S. No. 16). It was argued that this ranking was duly verified and accurately reflects the official membership hierarchy, affirming their rightful seniority.

It was  also argued that the Petitioner was issued a notice by the Crime Branch and had the opportunity to respond with supporting documents, which were considered. He also pointed out that the Petitioner failed to appear before the Financial Commissioner on several occasions, leading to the passing of the impugned order. Additionally, the Financial Commissioner had reviewed the Petitioner’s written submissions. Therefore, there was no violation of natural justice, and Respondent No. 5 requested the dismissal of the Writ Petition with heavy costs.

The Hon’ble High Court observed in line with the Joint Registrar’s conclusion rendered in proceedings under Section 61 of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1973 that the Receipt No. 5795, claimed by the Petitioner as proof of membership for his mother, Surjeet Kaur, is missing from the society's receipt book. The receipt shown by the Petitioner (No. 5195, dated 23.11.1973) contradicts the records, as nearby receipts (Nos. 5194 and 5196) are dated 27.11.1973. The administrator's cash book shows receipt No. 5195 issued to Vidya Bhatia, with a cheque transaction from Union Bank of India (cheque No. 488165, dated 27.11.1973). This discrepancy suggests possible forgery, and the matter was referred to the Crime Branch, who vide an Inquiry Report dated 22.03.2024 for further investigation who came to the same finding. 

A society meeting on 24.11.1981 listed Respondent No. 5 at serial No. 7 and Petitioner’s mother at serial No. 16 on the waiting list. Thus, the petitioner's claim for seniority over Mrs. Joginder Kaur for plot allotment is not substantiated.

The Hon’ble Court relied upon the Financial Commissioner’s order dated 26.07.2024 and held that the Petitioner served as President/Vice President of the Society from 1992 to 2008, during which they had access to Society records. If there was a mistake in the 1981 waiting list, it could have been corrected, but no corrigendum exists. The Petitioner’s claim of a 1973 membership application lacks supporting evidence. Receipt No. 5195 dated 23.11.1973 is missing from the Society’s records. The 1981 Managing Committee’s decision does not support the Petitioner’s claim, and without proper documentation, the impugned orders are upheld.

The Hon’ble Court concluded that the findings of three authorities, supported by the Inquiry Report from an ACP, cast serious doubt on the Petitioner’s claims. Receipt No. 5195, dated 23.11.1973, is shown between two receipts, 5194 and 5196, both dated 27.11.1973. This discrepancy makes it clear that a receipt dated 23rd November 1973 could not have been issued. 

Even assuming the Petitioner’s mother transferred the membership in her name on 20.02.1974, she would still rank below Respondent No.5, who was enrolled in 04.12.1973. The authorities found that the Petitioner was ranked 16th, while Respondent no.5 was 7th on 24th November 1981. This factual finding cannot be challenged, confirming Respondent No.5’s seniority and plot allotment.

The Hon’ble Court found no violation of natural justice in the Financial Commissioner's proceedings. 

The Hon’ble Court further noted that that the S.K. Gambhir judgment clarifies that membership starts only when the application is accepted, not based on payment or application submission date. 

Therefore, the Petition is dismissed for being based on misleading information.

The Respondent No. 5 was represented by Mr. Arjun Syal and Mr. Raghuveer Kapur, team from Syal and Co.