http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE CHAIRMAN, NOIDA & 2 ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/01/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (2) 420        JT 1995 (2)    55  1995 SCALE  (1)416

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   Admittedly,  the petitioner was found to be one of  the eligible  persons  entitled to be registered as a member  of the  Coop.  Societies for allotment of the plots  in  NOIDA. He also deposited the price within time on diverse dates  as directed  by the Society itself The NOIDA refused  allotment of the plot to the petitioner on the sole ground that 1.5.76 was  the  cut off date and who so ever was a member  of  the society prior to it would be entitled for the allotment.  As the petitioner was enrolled as a member on 8.5.76, he is not eligible  for  allotment of the plot.  It is seen  from  the record  that  the  Society  had bungled  in  the  matter  of enrollment  of members.  In consequence the  petitioner  was constrained  to  invoke arbitration proceedings  before  the competent authority The Register in his award dated  9.11.83 recorded  a clear finding that the petitioner  had  compiled with  what all the rules requires him to do and the  Society had  committed  bungling in not forwarding the name  of  the petitioner  within the time.  Consequently, a direction  was given  to  forward  the  name  of  the  petitioner  for  the enrollment  as  a member.  The award became  final  and  the Society was bound by it. Since it came to be received  after the  due date, the registration has been made after  7  days from  the  cut off date put by this Court in NOIDA  v.  U.P. Residents  Emp.  Coop.  Hsg.  Bldg.  Society,  1990  (supp.) SCC 175.  The petitioner was in no way responsible for delay in  admission beyond the cut off date.  In view of the  fact that the petitioner himself has been agitating for his right to  membership and for allotment of plot and having  already deposited  the amount, we think that he cannot be  penallsed for  misfeasance of the Society.  Under  the  circumstances, the  writ  petition has to be allowed.   It  is  accordingly allowed under the said special circumstances but not on  any other  ground    and  it cannot be used as  a  precedent  to overcome the cut off date fixed by this Court.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

2.   It  is brought to our notice that the respondents  have refunded  the entire amount deposited by the petitioner  and he  had  kept  the  amount in  a  separate  account  earning interest  thereon.  The petitioner is directed  to  withdraw the  amount from the account with notice to  the  respondent and it is open to the respondent to verify this fact.  After withdrawal of the amount, the petitioner should  immediately deposit  the  entire  amount to  funded  by  the  respondent together with interest earned thereon, with the  respondent. No costs. 58