http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 17  

PETITIONER: RAJ RANI & ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DELHI ADMINISTRATION & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/12/1976

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH SINGH, JASWANT

CITATION:  1977 AIR 1900            1977 SCR  (2) 371  1977 SCC  (2) 314

ACT:             Delhi  Co-operative Societies Act 1972--Delhi  Co-opera-         tive  Societies  Rules, 1973, rr. 24,  25,  30--Rules  about         membership--Cooperative  Society--Applications--Payment   of         share  money--Whether  mandatory  or  directory--Mala   fide         allotment--Allotment with undue haste by passing persons  in         wanting   list-Declaration as defaulters for non-payment  of         dues-Not submitting affidatvits.

HEADNOTE:             On  6-7-1971 the Lt. Governor of Delhi passed  an  award         directing the New Friends Co-operative House Building Socie-         ty  Limited to pay Rs.22 lacs to the  Delhi  Administration.         On  9-7-1971 the Lt. Governor by a notification removed  the         elected Managing Committee and appointed a nominated  Manag-         ing  Commitee under rule 56 of the Delhi Cooperative  Socie-         ties Rules, 1950  framed under the Bombay Cooperative Socie-         ties Act 1925 as  applied to Delhi.  The term of the  Manag-         ing Committee was for one year.  On 23-10-1971 the nominated         Managing Committee passed a resolution to make the award  of         the  Lt. Governor a rule of the court.  In  December,  1971,         the  nominated  Managing Committee passed a  resolution  for         having direct sub-leases and in January 1972 called for more         funds.   In July, 1972, the  Lt. Governor  issued a   second         notification  extending the term of the  nominated  Managing         Committee  by further two years.             287  members of the Society filed writ petition No.  340         of  1972, challenging the rites of rule 56  and  challenging         the  action of the Lt. Governor in superseding  the  elected         Managing Committee and in extending the term of the nominat-         ed  Managing Committee by a further period of 2  years.   On         30-4-1973, the nominated Managing Committee issued a  circu-         lar  asking  the  members  of the  Society  to  pay  certain         amounts.  On 6-7-1973, this Court restrained the Society and         its  Chairman  from declaring any member  a  defaulter.   On         13-8-1973,  this Court directed that all the interim  orders         passed  in the writ petition should be confined to  the  287         petitioners.  On 16-8-1973, K.V. Johar filed a writ petition         in  a  representative capacity under Order 1 rule 8  of  the         C.P.C.   on  behalf of all the members of the  Society.   On         17-8-1973,  the  nominated Managing Committee  declared  321

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 17  

       members  as defaulters.  On 21-9-1973 this Court  restrained         the  Society from taking any steps in pursuance of the  said         resolution.  On an application made by respondent No. 6  the         stay   granted   in   K.V.  Johar’s  petition  was  vacated.         However,  application  for vacating the stay order  in   Raj         Rani’s petition was not pursued.             On 6-1-1974 the nominated Managing Committee declared 39         members as defaulters for non-payment of dues and 42 members         as  defaulters for not submitting the affidavits.  On  25-1-         1974  the nominated Managing Committee decided to  enrol  60         new  members.   On 26-1-1974 a confidential letter  was  ad-         dressed by respondent No. 6 to the Lt. Governor seeking  his         approval to the enrolment of 60 new members and allotment of         plots  to them.  On the same day the Lt. Governor  gave  his         approval.   Two C.M. Ps. were filed by the writ  petitioners         challenging the declaration of the members as defaulters and         enrolment  of 60 new member‘.  This Court on  29-3-1971  di-         rected  that all the papers including resolutions,  original         applications  and original allotments should be produced  in         the Court.  This Court also restrained the nominated  Manag-         ing Committee by an injunction from taking any steps in  any         manner.  On 4-4-1974. this Court passed direction in respect         of  some  members who were declared defaulters and  who  had         made part payments either within the time prescribed or even         beyond the time prescribed.  This Court also mentioned  that         the  allotment  of plota to 60 new metal:era who  were  cha-         racterised as very important persons appeared         372         to  have  been made in undue haste and the  persons  on  the         waiting  list  were not considered and that  no  notice  was         given to persons inviting applications.  This Court directed         that the list of 60 new members had to await final adjudica-         tionand also directed that no further steps should be  taken         in the case of those 60 allottees.  The Court also  directed         that  the cases of remaining 24 defaulters would be  consid-         ered  if  it came to the conclusion that  the  allotment  in         favour of 60 new members could not be allowed to stand.         Rule  24  of  the Delhi Cooperative  Societies  Rules  1973,         requires a person to apply for membership in writing in  the         form prescribed by the Society.His application is to be  ap-         proved  by the Managing Committee of the Society. He has  to         fulfil other conditions laid down in the Act, the Rules  and         the  Bye-laws.  Rule 25 provides that a person shall not  be         eligible for admission as a member if he owns a  residential         house  or a plot of land for the construction of a  residen-         tial house in Delhi.  Rule 30 provides that on receipt of an         application  for  membership the Cooperative  Society  shall         enter  particulars  of the application in  the  register  of         applications  in  the form mentioned therein.  It  also  re-         quires the Society to dispose of the application received as         early as possible and in  no case later than the  expiration         of  a  period of one month from the date of receipt  of  the         application.  Rule 30 further provides that the person whose         membership has been approved by the Managing Committee of  a         Cooperative Society shall deposit the membership fee and the         amount  of qualifying shares necessary  to become  a  member         within  14  days  of the passing of the  resolution  of  the         Managing  Committee approving the membership of  the  person         concerned.   Bye-law  5 provides that every  person  seeking         membership  of the Society shall sign a declaration  to  the         effect that he or his wife or any of his dependants does not         own a dwelling house or a plot in Delhi.             When the writ petitions came up for final hearing  along         with the C.M.Ps. on 29-8-1974 this Court appointed Shri  Deb         Brat Mukherjee as Chairman of the Society.  The Chairman was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 17  

       asked  to  scrutinise  whether any person  had  been  either         illegally brought in as a member or illegally removed having         regard to the rules, the bye-laws and the regulations of the         Society.         The Chairman restored the membership of the alleged default-         ers  and published a tentative voters’ list.   The  Chairman         declared  that out of the 60 new allottees 21 did  not  have         applications for membership and 38  were  illegally admitted         and could not be included in the voters’ list.  The chairman         said  that the allotment of plots in their favour could  not         be upheld.  11 persons out of the 60 new allottees filed two         C.M.Ps. in August 1976 praying for an injunction restraining         the  chairman  from holding elections.   These  applications         were  filed  without serving any party  to  the  proceedings         contrary  to the rules and practice of the court.  On  23-9-         1976, the Chairman submitted his report.         Allowing the writ petitions,         HELD:  1. The date of the application, prescription of  time         for  deposit of membership fee and the amount of  qualifying         shares,  and the filing  of  the requisite  declaration  are         formalities  which  cannot  be  disregarded.   The  Chairman         rightly came to the conclusion that the new allottees  could         not be treated as members.  The new allottees were taken  in         without considering the persons on the waiting list.  It was         incumbent on the Society to act in accordance with clause  7         of the Lt. Governor’s award. The Managing Committee took  38         persons as members unlawfully.  The declaration of  default-         ers  could  not  have been made except by the  General  Body         with a special majority and with the approval of the  Regis-         trar.   The  nominated  Managing Committee  could  not  have         functioned after 1st April 1973 in view of the provisions of         s.  92 read  with  s. 32 of the Delhi Cooperative  Societies         Act  1972.  In view of the award of the Lt.  Governor  dated         6-7-1971  the Committee had no jurisdiction to  declare  any         member  a defaulter.  The act of declaration  of  defaulters         of  6-1-1974 cannot be dis-associated from the enrolment  of         new allottees on 25th and 26th January 1974.  The report  of         the  chairman  in restoring membership to  the  108  alleged         defaulters  is just and correct.  The circular  dated  30-4-         1973  issued  by the nominated Managing Committee is  not  a         notice within the meaning of         373         the bye-laws of the Society and the declaration of  default-         ers on the basis of the circular is illegal and contrary  to         the  bye-laws of the Society.  The circular  was  despatched         after  the time for payment mentioned therein was over.   No         opportunity was given to a member as required by the amended         bye-laws to show cause why his right to a plot would not  be         forfeited.  The order of this court dated 6-7-1973 continued         to  be  in force in so far as the petitionrs in  Raj  Rani’s         petition  are  concerned.   Therefore,  the  declaration  of         defaulters from amongst the petitioners in Raj Rani’s  peti-         tion was unjustified.  The action of the nominated  Managing         Committee  declaring defaulters was in  bad   faith  because         they wanted to confer benefits on other persons in the guise         of  declaration of defaulters.  [381 A-B, D, E, H, 383A,  D,         F, 384B-E]             The Chairman rightly came to the conclusion that out  of         the  42  declarations  of  defaulters   for  not  submitting         affidavit 30 members had genuine grievances. [384-F]             The Chairman rightly held that the 4 persons whose money         was  lying  with the Society should be  made  members.   The         Chairman  also rightly held that the 4 persons  whose  lands         had  been  acquired  by the Society should  be  accepted  as         members  [385A-B]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 17  

       The priority fixed by the Chairmaan about allotment of plots         is just. [385-C]               [The  Court with a view to ensuring that  the  persons         mentioned  in the Chairman’s report should get  the  reliefs         mentioned in the report held that those persons should  make         fresh applications with affidavits through the Chairman ’and         the allotment of plots should be made in accordance with the         priority laid down by the Chairman.]

JUDGMENT:         ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ petition No. 340 of 1972.         (Under article 32 of the Constitution of India).             P.H.  Parekh and Miss Manju Jetlcy, for the  petitioners         in W.P. 340/72 excepting petitioner No. 59 and for petition-         ers in W.P. 1526/ 73.         Petitioner No. 59 in W.P. No. 340/72 in person.             Yogeshwar  Prasad,  S.K. Bagga, Mrs. S. Bagga  and  Miss         Yesh Bagga for the petitioner in W.P. No. 286/74.             Niren De, Attorney General in writ petition 340,  Sardar         Bahadur Saharya and Vishnu Bahadur Saharya, for  respondents         Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 15 in W.P. 340/72 and respondents in all         the W.Ps.             K.J. John for M/s. J. B. Dadachanji & Co. for R.R. 2, 6,         8, 10, and 12 in W.P. 340 & 1526 and R.R. 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12         in W,P. 286/74.             S.K. Mehta, K.R. Nagaraja and P.N. Puri for R.R.  13-178         in W.P. 1526/73.         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by              RAY, C.J. This Court on 29 August, 1974 appointed  Shri         Debabrata   Mookerjee Chairman  to  convene,  fix  the  date         and hold the meeting of New Friends Cooperative House Build-         ing  Society Ltd. referred to as the Society  in  accordance         with the provisions of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act,         1972.  This meeting was direct-         374         ed to be held for the purpose of electing the members of the         New  Managing Committee  The Chairman was directed  to  look         into  each and every disputed question of  membership.   The         Chairman  was further directed to decide whether the persons         had been rightly or wrongly declared to be defaulters.   The         order  further  directed  that if the Chairman came  to  the         conclusion that the person had been wrongly declared to be a         defaulter, the Chairman would include him or her in the list         of  members.  The Chairman was also asked to give effect  to         all  orders of this Court already made in regard to  persons         who were declared defaulters and who according to orders  of         this Court on payment of moneys are not and cannot be treat-         ed defaulters. The Chairman was asked to go into cases where         money had been sent and not accepted.  If the Chairman  came         to the conclusion that money had been wrongly not  accepted,         the Chairman would decide the same in accordance with  Rules         and  Bye-laws of the Society. There are further  details  in         the order dated 29 August, 1974.             In  the order dated 29 August, 1974 Brij Mohan  Malhotra         was  given liberty to adduce proof before the Chairman  that         the money was tendered Within time.  If the Chairman came to         the conclusion that it was tendered in time, he would decide         in accordance with Rules and Bye-laws of the Society.             The  Chairman  was entitled to  scrutinise  whether  any         person  had been either illegally brought in as a member  or         illegally removed, having regard to the rules, bye-laws  and         regulations of the Society. Inder Bir Kaur alleged that  she         had  been illegally removed from membership.   The  Chairman

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 17  

       was directed to go into the question.             The order was made in two writ petitions No. 340 of 1972         and  1526 of 1973 and in a number of miscellaneous  applica-         tions.             On 6 July, 1971 the Lt. Governor passed an award direct-         ing the Society to pay Rs.22 lakhs to the Delhi  Administra-         tion.   On  9 July, 1971 the Lt Governor by  a  notification         removed  the  elected  Managing Committee  and  appointed  a         nominated’  Managing  Committee under Rule 56 of  the  Rules         made under the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act, 1925  here-         inafter  referred  to  as the Bombay Act  which  applied  to         Delhi.  The term of the Managing Committee was for one year.             On  23  October, 1971 the nominated  Managing  Committee         passed a resolution to make the award rule of the Court.  On         18 December, 1971 the nominated Managing Committee passed  a         resolution   for having direct sub-leases.  On  22  January,         1972   the   nominated Managing Committee  called  for  more         funds.   On  5  July, 1972 the Lt.  Governor  issued  second         notification  extending the term  of  the nominated Managing         Committee by two years.             The  Society  was the subject matter of two  writ  peti-         tions.   287 members of the Society filed writ petition  No.         340  of  1972 hereinafter referred to Raj  Rani’s  petition.         The members challenged         375         the  vires of Rule 56 of the Society on the ground that  the         rule.was  ultra rites section 71 of the Bombay Act and  fur-         ther  that the rule was bad on account of excessive  delega-         tion.   The petitioners contended that action under Rule  56         could not. be taken without complying with the provisions of         section 46A of-the Bombay Act which was applicable to. Delhi         at the relevant time.  The petitioners also challenged  some         notifications  on  the ground that the Lt.  Governor  having         exercised his powers once could not extend the term,  In          short,  it was said that the power of the Lt. Governor  was         exhausted. The other challenges were that the  notifications         were  not speaking order and were made malafide.  The  broad         challenge in the petition was against the extension of  term         of  the Managing Committee.  On  29 August, 1972  Rule  Nisi         was issued.            On 30 April, 1973 the nominated Chairman of  the Managing         Committee issued a circular asking the members of the Socie-         ty  to  pay  certain amount.  On 6  July,  1973  this  Court         restrained  the Society and its Chairman from declaring  any         member a defaulter. ’On 13 August, 1973 this Court  directed         that  all  the interim orders passed in  the  writ  petition         should  be confined to the  petitioners in Raj Rani’s  peti-         tion.             On 16 August, 1973 K.V. Johar filed a writ petition in a         representative capacity under Order I Rule 8 of the Code  of         Civil  Procedure.   This is writ petition-No. 1526  of  1973         hereinafter referred to as Johar’s petition.  On 20  August,         1973 this Court issued Rule Nisi in Johar’s petition.              On  17  August, 1973 the nominated  Managing  Committee         declared  321 members as defaulters.  This Court on 21  Sep-         tember,  1973  restrained the Society from taking any  steps         in  pursuance   of  the  resolution dated  17  August,  1973         against  the  petitioners  and   all other  members  of  the         Society.              On 29 November, 1973 respondent No. 6 filed an applica-         tion in Johar’s petition for vacating the stay order granted         on 21 September, 1973.  An application for vacating the stay         order granted on 6 July, 1973 in Raj Rani’s petition was not         pursued.  This Court vacated the stay granted on 21  Septem-         ber, 1973 in Johar’s petition and granted a fortnight’s time

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 17  

       to make the requisite payment.          On    6   January,   1974    the     nominated     Managing         Committee  declared 39 members as defaulters for non-payment         of      dues,  42  members as defaulters for not  submitting         the  affidavits.  This  was one of the  controversies  which         formed  the   subject  mattter of the enquiry  made  by  the         Chairman.             On  25  January, 1974 the nominated  Managing  Committee         decided  to  enrol 60 new members.   On 26 January,  1974  a         confidential letter was addressed by respondent No. 6 to the         Lt. Governor seeking his approval to the enrolment of 60 new         members  and allotment of plots to them.   On the same  day,         the  Lt.  Governor addressed a letter to  respondent  No.  6         giving his approval.   The enrolment of         8--1546SCI/76         376         new  members  on 25 January, 1974, the approval of  the  Lt.         Governor  on 26 January, 1974 and the allotment of plots  to         those  60   new members formed a big controversy  which  was         also enquired into by the Chairman.         Two Civil Miscellaneous Petitions No. 1683 and 1072 of 1974         challenging the declaration of defaulters and the  enrolment         of  new members were filed in this Court in February,  1974.         C.M.P.No.1683  of  1974  is  in  Raj  Rani’s  petition   and         C.M.P.No. 1072 of 1974 is in Johar’s petition.   This  Court         on  29  March, 1974 directed that all the  papers  including         resolutions,  original   applications,  original  allotments         should  be  produced in this Court on 4 April,  1974.   This         Court  also restrained the Managing Committee by an  injunc-         tion from talking any steps in any manner.   On 4 April, 197         4 this Court passed directions in respect of persons who had         made part payments within the time prescribed or even beyond         the  time  prescribed  not  to  be  treated  as  defaulters.         This  Court  mentioned in its order that  the  allotment  of         plots  to  60 new members who were  characterised    by  the         petitioners as very important persons appeared to have  been         made  in  undue haste  and the persons in the  Waiting  list         were not considered and that no notice was given to  persons         inviting application. This Court directed that the said list         of 60 new members had   to await final adjudication by. this         Court.   This Court also directed that in case of 60  allot-         tees no further steps should be taken.   This Court directed         that  the  case of 24 defaulters would be considered  if  it         came  to the conclusion that the allotment in favour  of  60         new members would be treated as defaulters.                  In  the order dated 4 April, 1974  petitioners  No.         60, 46, 216, 171 and 165 in Raj Rani’s petition who paid  in         part after due date were not to be treated as defaulters and         they were given four weeks time to pay the balance.   It was         said that if they failed to pay the balance within the  time         granted  they would be treated as defaulters.    Petitioners         No. 1,118, 43 and 287 in Raj Rani’s petition were stated  to         have paid in full but after the due date.   They were not to         be  treated as defaulters.   It was also said that  if  they         had  not  paid the full amount, they were  also  given  four         weeks time for paying the balance,if any.   If they did  not         pay the balance within the time granted they         would be treated as defaulters.             In  Johar’s  petition S. Diwan,  Virendra  Singh,  Dalip         Singh  and Hari Singh were stated to have made  payments  in         part  beyond time.Iqbal Khanna and H. Bhatia were stated  to         have  made  payments in part within time.    They  were  all         given  four  weeks time from  the date of the order  and  in         default of payment within the time they would be treated  so         defaulters.    Ten other persons in Raj Rani’s petition  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 17  

       14  persons in Johar’s petition were said not to  have  paid         within   time.   A list of 31    sons was handed up to  this         Court  by  the petitioners.   These 31 persons were  alleged         to  have been admitted as members and to have been  allotted         plots.   It was contended that this allotment is  irregular.         These  allotments  were made on  26 January, 1974  to  which         reference has already been made.   It  was         377         said that the list of 31 persons would await final adjudica-         tion.    Ten  defaulters in Raj Rani’s petition and  14  de-         faulters in Johar’s petition aggregating 24 defaulters  were         to be considered at the time of final adjudication.   It was         said that if the allotment in respect of 31 per-, sons could         not  be allowed to stand then the cases of these 24  persons         would be considered.             In this back ground on 29 August, 1974 when the two writ         petitions  filed  by  Raj Rani and K.V. Johar  came  up  for         heating  this  Court appointed Shri Debabrata  Mookerjee  as         Chairman  of the Society.             It  may be stated here that some time in 1975  some  one         started  a suit against the Chairman to stop the enquiry  by         him.    The matter was brought to the notice of this  Court.         Some  malicious and baseless allegations were  made  against         the Chairman.   Under these circumstances this Court direct-         ed notice to the respondent who filed the suit to show cause         why  he should not be committed for contempt.  The  Chairman         was  in the  meantime asked to continue and he was  directed         to  look  into  each and every matter as  mentioned  in  the         earlier orders.             The  Chairman between 17 March, 1975 and 5 August,  1975         restored  the membership of the alleged defaulters.   On  26         April,  1976  tentative voters list was published.    On  14         May,  1976 the Chairman informed the parties  that  election         would  be  held  on 29 August, 1976. On 12  July,  1976  the         Chairman  informed  the parties that the election  would  be         held  on 29 August, 1976 at Mavalankar Hall.   On  27  July,         1976  the Chairman declared that of the 60 new  members  who         had been described as very important persons 21 did not have         applications for membership and 38 were not legally admitted         members and could not be included in the list.   The  Chair-         man  said that the allotment of plots in their favour  could         not  be upheld.   On 28 July, 1976 the list of  members  was         published.   On  17 August, 1976 there was scrutiny  of  the         ballot papers.             On 24 August, 1976 11 persons out of the 60 persons  who         were enrolled members on 25 January, 1974 and allotted plots         on  26 January, 1974 filed two Civil  Miscellaneous  praying         for  an  order restraining the Chairman  from   holding  the         election  on 29  August, 1976 These applications  were  held         without serving any party to the proceedings contrary to the         rules and practice of this Court.  On 25 August, 1976  coun-         sel for those petitioners mentioned the applications  before         the  Court  presided  over by Khanna, J.  asking  that   the         applications  filed might be heard.   It was also  mentioned         without  informing  the parties.  On 27  August,  1976  this         Court further adjourned the applications.             On  29 August 1976 the meeting was held and voting  took         place at Mavalankar Hall.             On 23 September, 1976 the Chairman submitted  his report         and  give  copies to the parties.  On 15  October,  1976  11         persons who         378         had made the two applications for  restraining of holding of         the  election  filed an application for adjournment  of  the         case for two months.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 17  

           This Court cannot help observing two features.   One  is         that  an  attempt  was made some time in the  year  1975  to         restrain  the Chairman from proceeding with-the  enquiry  by         filing  a suit against him and making baseless  allegations.         It  is only because this Court took immediate notice of  the         matter that the frivolous suit which had been filed in abuse         of  process of court was put an end to.  The second is  that         on  the  eve of the election another attempt  was  made  to.         restrain  the  Chairman from holding the  election.    These         facts. along with the attempt on the part of those 11  peti-         tioners to keep the matter adjourned for two months indicate         the persistent attitude on the part of some of those persons         to mark time for some oblique purposes.             In  view  of the importance of issues involved  and  the         gravity of the situation where interest of ordinary citizens         was-sacrificed to meet the interest of persons of importance         and  influence that this Court took the aforesaid steps,  in         order to put an end to the litigation and the controversies,             It  was to be kept in the forefront that the Society  is         not yet the lessee of the Government in respect of the  land         which  is to be allotted to the members.   In Volume  II  in         Raj  Rani’s  petition No. 340 of 1972  appears  the  printed         memorandum agreement to be entered into between the  Society         and the President of  India in respect of land which will be         allotted to the members of the Society,   On 3 August,  1967         the  Deputy  Secretary, Delhi Administration  wrote  to  the         Secretary  of  the Society, inter alia, as  follows:  "I  am         desired to make it clear that the list of members  submitted         with your letter’ has been treated as final and no change in         that  list can be made without prior written  permission  of         the Delhi Administration."             The printed memorandum of agreement has three  recitals.         One of the racitals is that whereas the Society  has  depos-         ited   with   the Chief Commissioner the sum of  Rs.41,  62,         456.61  and  has further agreed to deposit  with  the  Chief         Commissioner  the  additional  sum or  sums  as  hereinafter         provided, being the amounts agreed to be paid by the Society         to  the  President by way of premium for the  grant  to  the         Society  of the lease hereinafter mentioned  which  amounts,         pending the grant of the said lease, are to be a security to         the  President  for due performance by the  Society  of  the         terms of the Agreement.   It is agreed between the  parties,         inter alia, as follows:--         1.  The President hereby grants f0r a period of three  years         commencing  from 13 February, 1973 a licence to the  Society         to enter upon the said land only for the purposes of  making         surveys  and taking measurements and levels for preparing  a         lay-out plan.         VIII.  Upon the completion of the development of the land in         accordance  with the provisions contained herein and to  the         satisfaction of the Chief Commissioner and issue by him of a         certificate to that effect         379         and  provided that the other conditions  of   the  Agreement         have been duly observed, the President will,  in-.considera-         tion of the expenses incurred by the Society on the develop-         ment  of the land and the payment of the premium and of  the         yearly  rent as herein provided and of the covenants on  the         part of the Society  to be;contained in the lease, grant  to         the   Society  and  the Society ,shall  accept  a  lease  of         such  of the residential plots as may be determined  by  the         Chief Commissioner in ,his absolute discretion.         XV(a).   After the execution and registration of the  lease,         the  Society shall sub-lease, within such time and  on  such         premium  and yearly rent as may be fixed by  the  President,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 17  

       one  residential  plot to each of its members who  or  whose         wife/husband or any of his/her dependent relatives including         unmarried children does not own, in full or in part, on  the         free-hold  or  lease-hold basis, ,any  residential  plot  or         house  in the urban areas of Delhi, New Delhi or Delhi  Can-         tonment and who may be approved by the Chief Commissioner.             Reference to the Agreement is necessary to show that the         Society  is not yet lessee of the Government in  respect  of         the  land.   This is a mere agreement for the grant  to  the         Society   of  the  lease.  The Government refused  to  grant         lease.    Thereafter  the matter  was referred to the  arbi-         tration  of  the Lt. Governor.   The  Lt. Governor  made  an         award  directing  the Society to pay Rs.22,45,742/-  as  the         balance amount representing the cost of land.             In  1972 a supplementary agreement was made between  the         President of India and the Society.  One of the recitals  in         that  agreement mentions that the Society has not  completed         the development of the land and the members of the  Managing         Committee  resolved  that the Lt. Governor of Delhi  be  re-         quested to allow the members to pay their individual dues to         the  Administration  to   evacute  their   sub-teases.  This         recital  indicates that there was an attempt on the part  of         individual members to pay dues to the Society as well as  to         the  Government. It can, therefore, be seen that  membership         of  the  Society and the allotment of  lands  are  different         matters.             One  of the main contentions before the Chairman was  in         regard  to membership of 60 persons.  These 60 persons  were         admitted   to  membership  on 25 January,  1974.    The  Lt,         Governor  approved of their membership on 26 January,  1974.         The  Chairman found that of these 60 persons 21 had  at  one         time  or  another withdrawn their membership.    10  out  of         those  21 had either never applied or never paid the  requi-         site  membership fee.   The result, according to the  Chair-         man,  was that the cases of 39 persons were to be    consid-         ered.  The Chairman noticed that "many of these  60  persons         were  highly  placed Government officials and   friends  and         relations  of  persons prominent in public life."    Another         allegation  was  that  many of them happened  "to  be  close         relations  or friends and members of the nominated  Managing         Committee."             At  the meeting held on 27 July, 1976 the  Chairman  re-         ferred   to  Rules 24 and 30 of the 1973  Delhi  Cooperative         Societies Rules. These         380         rules were under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules 1972         which replaced the Bombay Act 1925 in relation to the  Union         Territory.  These rules relate to conditions to be  complied         with for admission to membership.  Bye-law 5 of the  Society         Bye-laws was also referred to by the Chairman.             Broadly  stated, Rule 24 requires a person to  apply  in         writing in the form laid down by the Society for membership.         His  application is to be approved by the Committee  of  the         Society.    He has to fulfil other conditions laid  down  in         the Act, the Rules and the Bye-laws.             Rule 25 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules,  1973         provides  toter  alia that no person shall be  eligible  for         admission  as  member of a co-operative society, if  in  the         case  of  membership  of a housing society (1 )  he  owns  a         residential house or a plot of land for the construction  of         a  residential house in any of the approved  or  up-approved         colonies  or  other  localities in the  Union  Territory  of         Delhi,  in his own name or in the name of his spouse or  any         of his dependent children on lease hold or free hold  basis;         (2)  he  deals  in purchase or sale  of  immovable  property

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 17  

       either  as principal or as agent in the Union  Territory  of         Delhi;  or  (3)  he or his spouse or any  of  his  dependent         children  is  a member of any other housing  society  except         otherwise permitted by the Registrar.   Rule 25(2)  provides         that  if a  member becomes or has already become subject  to         any disqualifications specified in sub-rule (1), he shall be         deemed to have ceased to be a member from the date when  the         disqualifications were incurred.         Rule 30 deals with the disposal of application for admission         of  members.    The  rule provides that on  receipt  of   an         application  for membership, the co-operative society  shall         enter  particulars  of  the application in the  register  of         applications in the form mentioned therein.   The  co-opera-         tive  society shall dispose of an application  received  for         admission  as  member as early as possible and  in  no  case         later than the expiration of a period of one month from  the         date of receipt of the application by the Society.   In case         of  refusal  to admit, such society  shall  communicate  its         decision together with reasons thereof.   The appeal to  the         Registrar  lies  against the order for refusal to  admit   a         member.   An  important feature in rule 30 is  the  date  of         receipt  of application for membership because the  applica-         tion  is  to be dealt with within one  month.    Rule  30(4)         provides that the person whose membership has been  approved         by  the Managing Committee of a co-operative  society  shall         deposit the membership fee, and the amount of the  -qualify-         ing  shares necessary to become a member, within 14 days  of         the  passing  of the resolution of  the  Managing  Committee         approving the membership of the person concerned.             Bye-law 5, inter alia, provides that every person  seek-         ing membership of the Society shah sign a declaration to the         effect  that he or his wife (she or her husband) or  any  of         his/her dependents does not own a dwelling house or plot  in         Delhi and that he/she is not a member of any other  coopera-         tive house building society.           381             Judged by these rules and considering the rival  conten-         tions of the parties the Chairman found that of the 39 cases         there was only one case of N.K. Mukherjee M. No. 1526  which         fulfilled the requirements of the rules and the bye-laws and         the  Chairman  in  his report declared him  as  having  been         validly  accepted  as member.  Out of those  39  persons  20         applications did not bear any date.  The date of an applica-         tion, the prescription of time for deposit of the membership         fee and the amount of qualifying share and the filing of the         requisite  declaration arc formalities  which could  not  be         disregarded.  The  Chairman rightly came to  the  conclusion         that  out of 39 persons except N.K. Mukherjee the  other  38         were not legally admitted to the membership and,  therefore,         they  could  not  be  treated  as members.             The Chairman in paragraphs 9 to 16 of the Report consid-         ered  the  cases of several persons who. had  been  declared         defaulters.   He  rightly came to the  conclusion  that  108         persons  mentioned  in Annexure ’C’ should  be  restored  to         membership.             The  Chairman next considered whether there should be  a         waiting list.  A list of 102 persons described as the  wait-         ing list was forwarded and endorsed by the  officers of  the         Delhi  Administration. The Chairman came to  the  conclusion         that  of the 102 persons on the list, only a few  prosecuted         their  claims before the Chairman and the rest  appeared  to         him to be no more interested in the membership of the Socie-         ty.  In an annexure marked ’G’ the Chairman rightly included         in  the waiting list the names of such persons who could  be         considered.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 17  

           The  Chairman said that 38 persons whose membership  was         cancelled by him at the meeting held on 27 July, 1976  could         apply afresh so that their applications could be considered.         The  Chairman  said that 24 persons  made  applications  for         membership.  The Chairman rightly said that it would be fair         to leave  the consideration of the applications of these  24         persons  to the new Managing Committee and that their  names         should be kept in a waiting list.             The  Chairman next found that the Society  had  received         from  4 persons deposits towards the price of the land  more         than a decade ago but took no steps to return the moneys  or         to  admit them to the benefit of membership.   Again,  there         were  4  other persons whose land had been acquired  by  the         Delhi Administration.  There was an agreement which required         the Society to offer membership to these persons upon  their         fulfilling   the  conditions  of membership.   The  Chairman         found that those 4 persons whose land had been acquired  had         made applications.  The Chairman tightly came to the conclu-         sion  that  these 8 persons, namely 4 from whom  moneys  had         been  received and the other 4 whose land had been  acquired         should  be accepted as members.             Out of 38 persons whose membership was cancelled by  the         Chairman  on 27 July 11 applied to this Court in C.M.P.  No.         2065   of 1976 for an order that admission  of  124  members         mentioned in         382         Annexure  ’C’  to the petition is illegal  and  for  further         declaration  of  revocation of membership of 38  members  as         mentioned  in  Annexure  ’B’ to the  said  petition.   These         petitioners  also asked for an order directing the  Chairman         not  to  proceed  with the meeting of the  Society  and  the         holding of elections on 29 August, 1976.             These 11 persons also made applications C.M.Ps. No. 8485         and  8486 for filing objections to the report of the  Chair-         man. They wanted two months to file objections.             It  should be stated here that 11 applicants  wanted  to         prevent the holding of the meeting and the election for  the         purpose of prolonging litigation.             This  Court rightly did not prevent the holding  of  the         meeting and the election.  The report of the Chairman  shows         that  the meeting as well as the election was  lawfully  and         validly held.             These  11  persons were given full opportunity  to  make         their submissions by way of objection to the report.   Coun-         sel appeared and made their submissions.             These 11 persons submitted that no relief can be  sought         by the petitioners in the writ petitions against the Society         and  that Article 19 cannot now be invoked for the  enforce-         ment of rights.  Their further submissions were these.  On 6         January,  1974  39 persons were declared defaulters  by  the         Managing  Committee   for non-compliance with the  order  of         this  Court  passed on 11 December, 1973.  One of  those  39         defaulters made an application to this Court on 9  February,         1974  for  condonation of delay and for restoration  of  his         membership.  The application was dismissed on  25  February,         1974.  On 4 April, 1974 this Court granted four  weeks  time         to  15 persons out of the 39 declared defaulters and  there-         fore the default of 24 persons was confirmed.  The  Chairman         re-considered the cases of 24  defaulters including the  one         whose application was dismissed.  These 11 persons submitted         that  their  membership  and allotment   should   have  been         restored.  The Chairman was also in error in considering the         cases of 8 persons because records were not available.             It  is  significant  that out of 1100  members  and  the         several parties to the writ petitions none has taken  objec-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 17  

       tion  to the report of  the Chairman.  The only persons  who         objected  are  out of the 24 persons  those  membership  and         allotment  on 26 January, 1974 was cancelled. These 24  per-         sons  have  however been put by the Chairman  in  a  waiting         list.             The  membership   as well as the allotment of  plots  to         these  38 persons is rightly rejected by the Chairman.   The         Chairman based his finding on facts of tabulated  statements         prepared  in  the presence of counsel and  parties  in  open         public hearings.  No challenge can be taken to the dates and         facts.  The Chairman rightly found that even if the date  of         the  eligibility certificate is taken as the effective  date         of  application  the  position cannot   be  otherwise.   The         Chairman rightly found that the records do not indicate that         the payment was         383         made within 14 days of the date of resolution.  The Chairman         rightly found that the requirement of payment is not  proved         and there has not been substantial compliance.  The  conclu-         sion  is  correct and inescapable that the enrolment  of  38         persons  was  not  only rushed but was  done  with  unseemly         haste.             It  also  appears from the report of the  Chairman  that         persons  the waiting list were not considered  before  these         38  persons were enrolled as members. Reference may be  made         to  clause  (7) of the Award of the Lt. Governor  which  was         made  the  rule of Court. The award is dated 6  July,  1971.         Clause  (7) made it encumbent on the Society to act  in  ac-         cordance  with the award.  There were some persons who  were         treated  by  the new Managing Committee  as  defaulters  and         these  38 persons were taken by the new  Managing  Committee         unlawfully as members.             The  Chairman  in Annexure ’C’ restored 108  persons  to         membership.  These 108 persons had been declared  defaulters         by  the nominated Managing Committee.  This Court  by  order         dated  29  August, 1974 required the Chairman to  look  into         each  and  every   disputed question of  membership  and  to         decide  as to whether a member has been rightly  or  wrongly         declared a defaulter.             The  nominated  Managing Committee on  6  January,  1974         declared a number of persons to be defaulters.  The declara-         tion  of defaulters could not have been made except  by  the         General Body with  a special majority and with the  approval         of  the Registrar.  The nominated Managing  Committee  could         not  have  functioned  after 1 April, 1973 in  view  of  the         provisions  of section 92 read with section 32 of the  Delhi         Co-operative  Societies Act, 1972.  In view of the award  of         the Lt. Governor dated 6 July, 1971 the Committee had there-         after  no  jurisdiction to declare any member  a  defaulter.         This Court by order dated 4 April, 1974 observed  that   the         case  of 24 defaulters would be considered if it  transpired         that  the  list  of new allottees could not  be  allowed  to         stand.   The act of declaration of defaulters on 6  January,         1974  cannot   be  dissociated  from the  enrolment  of  new         allottees on 25 and 26 January, 1974.             The  report  of the Chairman in  restoring  108  alleged         defaulters to membership is just and correct.  This Court by         Order  dated  29 August, 1974 required the Chairman to  look         into  each and every disputed question of membership and  to         decide whether a person has been tightly or wrongly declared         a defaulter.  The  order further stated that if the Chairman         came to the conclusion that the person has been declared  to         be  a defaulter the Chairman will include him or her in  the         list  of members.  The report of the Chairman is  lucid  and         direct  to  the point.  The report  noticed that  there  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 17  

       widespread discontent as to the way in which the affairs  of         the Society were conducted.  The report said "Allegations of         favouritism want of fairplay, mal-administration, deliberate         suppression  of  the  rights of  members  were  freely  made         against  the  nominated Managing Committee  in  1971".   The         Chairman noticed that there was "nothing to         384         choose  between the old elected Committee  which was  super-         seded and the nominated Managing Committee  which  came   to         take  its place".  Letters  were hardly   replied-to.    En-         quiries were rarely attempted to.  Cheques were hardly  ever         cashed  in time.  Sudden declarations of default  were  made         without following the prescribed procedure laid down in  the         Act and the Rules.             The nominated Managing Committee issued a circular dated         30  April, 1973 demanding Rs.6 per sq. yard  and  threatened         the  members that in case they did not pay the  said  amount         they  would be declared defaulters.  This circular is not  a         notice within the meaning of the bye-laws of the Society and         declaration  of defaulters on the basis of the  circular  is         illegal and contrary to bye-laws of the Society. Further the         said  circular  was despatched after the  time  for  payment         mentioned  therein was over.  No opportunity was  given  tog         member as required by the mended bye-laws to show cause  why         his right to a plot would not be forefeited for  non-payment         of deposit.  Figures of alleged dues were not mentioned   in         the circular in most of the case.             In  view of the award of the Lt. Governor dated 6  July,         1971 the nominated Managing Committee could not declare, any         member  to be a defaulter.  Further the order of this  Court         dated  6 July, 1973 continued to be in force, in so  far  as         the  petitioners in Raj Rani’s petition are concerned.   The         declaration  of defaulters from amongst the  petitioners  in         Raj  Rani’s  petition was unjustified.  The  action  of  the         Managing  Committee  declaring defaulters was in  bad  faith         because  they  wanted to confer benefits  on  other  persons         under the guise of declaration of defaulters.             This  Court in the order dated 4 April,  1974,  observed         that  the cases of 24 defaulters would be considered  if  it         transpired  that  the list of allottees on 26 January,  1974         could  not  be allowed to stand. The  Chairman  has  rightly         dealt with the cases of 24 defaulters  in view of his  right         conclusion that the allotments on 26 January; 1974 were bad.             The Chairman considered the cases of 42 persons who  had         been declared defaulters.  The Chairman rightly came to  the         conclusion  that 30 persons had genuine  grievances  and  he         accepted  them as members on their submitting fresh  affida-         vits  with  a view to putting an end  to  all  controversies         whether  they  filed  affidavits of not.    R  was  admitted         before the Chairman that all these persons  had  field their         affidavits  originally while seeking membership.  The  ques-         tion was whether they filed any fresh affidavits as required         by the subsequent direction of the Delhi Development Author-         ity.  Some of the members contended before the Chairman that         they filed amended affidavits.  Some members contended  that         in spite of their request to give the proforma of the amend-         ed  affidavit the nominated Managing Committee did not  give         the  proforma of the affidavit.  Under these   circumstances         the  Chairman rightly accepted the contentions of 30 out  of         the 42 persons.         385             The Chairman rightly held that 4 persons whose money was         lying with the Society should be made members. The  Chairman         also  rightly held that 4 persons whose lands had  been  ac-         quired by the Society should be accepted as members.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 17  

           The Chairman in paragraph 37 of the report has indicated         that the new Managing Committee should fix priorities in the         order mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) to (e).  These in  sub-         paragraphs (a) to (b) belong to classes of members in  whose         favour  there  was specific allotment as early as  the  year         1957.  Due communication was made to them about the specific         allotment  of  plots.  They were persons who had  paid  more         than  Rs.17,000.   They were declared  defaulters  for  non-         payment  of Rs.3000 or less by the nominated  Managing  Com-         mittee  as late as the year 1974.  The Chairman rightly  put         persons in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) in order of priority.             Persons  in  sub-paragraph (c) in paragraph  37  of  the         Chairman’s report comprise those who were declared  default-         ers  round  about  the year 1962-63.  The  amounts  paid  by         persons in sub-paragraph (c) are less than the amounts  paid         by  persons  in sub-paragraphs (a) and ’(b).  There  was  no         specific  allotment of plots in favour of persons  mentioned         in sub-paragraph  (c).  Persons  in sub-paragraph (c) there-         fore  cannot claim priority over persons  in  sub-paragraphs         (a) and (b).  In sub-paragraph (c) only one person  objected         regarding  priority.  The other 47 persons  accepted   their         places in sub-paragraph (c). This also shows the justness of         the report,.             Subject  to the following directions, the report of  Mr.         D.  Mookerjee dated 23 September, 1976 is accepted and  con-         firmed.             1. The Managing Committee of the New Friends   Co-opera-         tive  Society  Ltd. (hereinafter called  "the  new  Managing         Committee")  elected at the meeting held on 29 August,  1976         shall assume charge with effect from the date of this order.             2. The new Managing Committee shall send to all  persons         referred  to in  sub-paragraphs  (a) to (e)of  paragraph  37         of  Mr. Mookerjee’s report, through Mr. Mookerjee, a  letter         stating   that membership fee and the amount  of  qualifying         share  necessary to become a member of the Society and  also         copies  of  this order as well as the appropriate  forms  of         application for membership of the Society and of the affida-         vits  to be sent by the applicants to the new Managing  Com-         mittee within one month from the date of this order.             3. Each person referred to in sub-paragraphs (a) to  (e)         of paragraph 37 shall, if he desires to have any plot allot-         ted  to him, apply for membership of the Society.  All  such         applications for membership of the Society shall be sent  to         Mr.  Mookerjee within 30 days. from the date of  receipt  of         the documents  referred  to in the next preceding  paragraph         hereof.   If any application is not received by Mr.  Mooker-         jee within the said period, or if the affidavit referred  to         in  the  next preceding paragraph is not enclosed  with  the         application, or if any application or affidavit be found  by         Mr. Mookerjee to be         386          not in compliance with the form of the application and  the         affidavit  sent to the applicant, Mr. Mookerjee shah  reject         such  application. Such rejection by Mr. Mookerjee shall  be         final.             4.  All applications for membership along  with  affida-         vits,  found by Mr. Mookerjee to be in order, will  be  for-         warded  by Mr. Mookerjee to the new Managing Committee  upon         the expiry  of  the  said period of 30 days.  Mr.  Mookerjee         will  make a list of the persons whose applications  are  so         forwarded by him to the new Managing Committee.             5. The new Managing Committee shall convene a meeting of         the Committee within 30 days from the receipt of the  appli-         cations  along with the affidavits sent by Mr. Mookerjee  to         the  new Managing Committee as aforesaid and pass a  resolu-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 17  

       tion accepting all such applicants for membership as members         of the Society.             6.  The new Managing Committee shall convey to Mr.  Moo-         kerjee its said resolution within  14 days of the passing of         such resolution and shall send to Mr. Mookerjee at least  as         many  copies of the resolution as the number of persons  who         are  admitted  as members of the Society by virtue  of  that         resolution.   Mr. Mookerjee will thereafter send a  copy  of         the said resolution to each of the applicants Who is  admit-         ted as a member of the Society by virtue of the said resolu-         tion.             7.  On  receipt  of the said  communication   from.  Mr.         Mookerjee each person who has been admitted as member of the         Society   by virtue of the said resolution shall, within  14         days from the receipt of the communication from Mr.  Mooker-         jee, pay to Mr. Mookerjee  by Bank Draft (drawn in favour of         "New Friends Co-operative House Building Society Ltd.")   an         amount including the membership fee and the amount of quali-         fying  share  necessary to become a member of  the  Society.         Mr.  Mookerjee will  thereafter forward  the Bank Drafts  to         the new Managing Committee.             8.  Regarding the allotment of plots,  the   suggestions         of  Mr. Mookerjee contained in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of         paragraph  37 of his report will be given effect to  by  the         new Managing Committee, subject to the availability of plots         and subject also to each person referred to in the said  two         sub-paragraphs  and to whom any plot is  allotted  complying         with  the direction contained in the preceding  paragraph  7         hereof  and further subject to each such person  paying  his         full  share of the money payable to the   Delhi  Development         Authority  under  the Supplementary Agreement  entered  into         between  the President of India and the Society on 1  Febru-         ary,  1972  by  a Bank Draft drawn in favour  of  the  Delhi         Development  Authority".             9.  The allotment of plots among persons referred to  in         sub-paragraphs (a)and (b) of paragraph 37 of Mr. Mookerjee’s         report  shall be in the  order of priority  mentioned  there         and already earmarked for them.  If plots which are  already         earmarked  for persons in subparagraphs (a) and (b) are  not         available  then there will  be  allotments to those  persons         by draw of lots first among those in sub-         387         paragraph (c): and  thereafter among  those in  sub-pargraph         (b).   Mr. Mookerjee will prepare a list of persons to  whom         plots   are so allotted and send copies of,the list  of  the         new. Managing Committee and,the Delhi Development  Authority         and inform  the persons to Whom, such  allotments are made.         10. Each person referred to in the said. sub-paragraphs. (a)         and  (b)  of paragraph 37 and to whom any plot  is  allotted         shall, within (b) days from the receipt of the communication         from  Mr.  Mookerjee as referred to  reparagraph  6  hereof,         enquire from the Delhi Development Authority  as to the  sum         payable by him to the Delhi Development Authority as  afore-         said  and upon receipt of the reply from the Delhi  Develop-         ment Authority pay the sum to the latter by a Bank     Draft         within  15 days from the date of the receipt of  the  reply.         In default of such payment the allotment to him will   stand         cancelled.  In the event of any such cancellation  allotment         may  be  made to the next person if any, in  this  sub-para-         graph.             11.  Thereafter,   if  any plot or plots  remain  to  be         allotted  the allotment or allotments shall strictly  be  in         accordance with the order of priority laid down in paragraph         37 of Mr. Mookerjee’s report. Such allotments shall be  made         by  Mr. Mookerjee by means of draw of lots first  among  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 17  

       persons  referred to in sub-paragraph (c)  thereafter  among         those  in  sub-paragraph (d) and thereafter among  those  in         sub-paragraph  (e) of paragraph 37 of his report.  Mr.  Moo-         kerjee will prepare a list of persons to whom the plots  are         so allotted and send copies of the list to the new  Managing         Committee and the Delhi Development Authority and inform the         persons  to  whom  such allotments are  made.   Any   person         referred  to in sub-paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of Mr.  Moo-         kerjee’s  report  who is allotted any plot shall  within  14         days  from the  receipt of the  communication from Mr.  Moo-         kerjee to the effect that a particular plot has been  allot-         ted  to him enquire from the Delhi Development Authority  as         to the sum payable by him to the Delhi Development Authority         as  aforesaid and upon receipt of the reply from  the  Delhi         Development  Authority pay the sum to the latter by  a  Bank         Draft  within  15 days from the date of the receipt  of  the         reply.  In default of such payment the allotment to him will         stand  cancelled.   In the event of any  such  cancellation,         allotment  may   be  made to next person, if  any,  in  that         subparagraph.             12.  Each allotment of plot, referred to in this  order,         shall be in accordance with the application  of each  appli-         cant for membership referred to in paragraph 3 hereof,  that         is  to  say, will not be entitled to any  allotment  of  any         land, the area whereof is different from the area  mentioned         in his application form.              13.  If any person referred to in any of the  sub-para-         graphs   of paragraph 37 of Mr. Mookerjee’s report  has  al-         ready paid any money to the Society and proves such  payment         to  Mr.  Mookerjee, the money so paid and  proved  shall  be         appropriated   towards payment of the amounts  mentioned  in         paragraphs No. 7, 8 mad 11 hereof.         388             14.  Upon allotment of land to any person  mentioned  in         this Report each allottee shall pay to the Society a sum  of         Rs.1,000/- within one month from the date of such  allotment         as  and by way of costs relating to these  proceedings.   In         default  of  payment  of such sum,  the  allotment  to  such         person  shall  stand cancelled.  In the event  of  any  such         default,  the  procedure laid down in paragraph  10  and  11         hereof shall be followed.  To  sum up.  In the event of  any         lucia default the allotment may be made to the next  person,         if any, in the sub-paragraph group of the defaulting persons         and thereafter to next sub-paragraph group of persons.              No  lease  shall be granted to any allottee  until  and         unless  all  directions contained in this  order  are  fully         complied with by him.             The Society shall pay to Mr.  Mookerjee  a  further  sum         of Rs.45,000/- as his remuneration for the work done by  him         so  far. The Society shall also pay Mr. Mookerjee a  further         stun  of Rs.5,000/for the work to be done by him under  this         order  and also such further sum or sums as he may  intimate         to the new Managing  Committee as extra expenses,  including         remuneration for his staff, postage etc. for the work to  be         done under  this order.  Mr.  Mookerjee’s Personal Assistant         Mr. Jain will be paid Rs.300/- per month.             This order shall not apply to such members of the Socie-         ty  who have already obtained leases from the  President  of         India.             This order will govern only  the affairs of this Society         and  will  not be a precedent for the affairs of  any  other         co-operative society.             Some persons have deposited monies with the Registrar of         this  Court.  The Registrar may hand over the money  to  the         Society.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 17  

           Writ  Petition No. 340 of 1972, 1526 of 1973 and 286  of         1974  and all proceedings in these writ petitions  are  dis-         posed of accordingly.         All parties will pay and bear their own costs.         P.H.P.                                             Petitions         allowed.         389