Full Judgment Text
$~18(2021)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decision delivered on: 25.10.2021
+ W.P.(C) 8210/2020
PRAVEEN KUMAR GUPTA ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak with Ms. K.
Kaumudi Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil
Kumar Jha and Mr. M.S. Akhtar,
Advocates.
versus
REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GNCTD & ANR.
......Respondents
Through: Mr. Gauram Narayan, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
1. Before we proceed with the matter, we may record that, the matter was
placed before a bench, comprising one of us i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J. and HMJ
Subramonium Prasad, on 23.07.2021, whereby CM No. 20255/2021was
disposed of, based on the statement of Mr. Gautam Narayan, who appears on
behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, that the petitioner’s case would be put before
the “Rule 90 Committee” (in short “the Committee”), as directed, within four
weeks the date of the said order.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8210/2020 Page 1 of 3
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM
Signing Date:03.11.2021
17:16:41
1.1. To be noted, the aforementioned application had been filed by the
petitioner for revival of the main writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) 8210/2020, and for
consequential order(s).
1.2. It is in this background that, the matter was directed to be listed on
15.09.2021.
1.3. On 15.09.2021 the matter was listed before this bench.
1.4. It appears that, the Registry did not point out that, this matter, perhaps,
had to be listed before the earlier bench i.e., the bench comprising one of us
[i.e., Rajiv Shakdher, J.] and HMJ Subramonium Prasad.
2. Be that as it may, since on 15.09.2021, we had only granted further time
for compliance to Mr. Narayan, the matter has been placed before us today i.e.,
25.10.2021.
2.1. Learned counsel for both the parties i.e., Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, who
appears on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr. Narayan say that, since the issue
involved today is only concerning compliance, they have no objection to this
bench taking up the matter.
2.2. Thus, with the consent of the counsel of the parties, the matter is taken
up by this Bench.
3. Mr. Narayan says that, a compliance affidavit dated 22.10.2021 has been
placed on record.
3.1. Mr. Narayan also states that, the name of the petitioner [i.e, M.S. No.
240] has been forwarded to the Delhi Development Authority(DDA) for draw
of lots.
3.2. This affidavit is accompanied by a letter dated 21.10.2021, which is
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8210/2020 Page 2 of 3
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM
Signing Date:03.11.2021
17:16:41
addressed by Mr. Ajit Kumar, Assistant Registrar (Sec-VII), to the Deputy
Director, (Group Housing), DDA.
3.3. A perusal of the abovementioned letter shows that, inter alia, the
petitioner’s name has been approved by the Committee, constituted under Rule
90 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 2007 (in short "DCS Rules,
2007") on 13.10.2021, for draw of lots. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned,
his name is shown against flats falling in category A.
3.4. The aforesaid letter also indicates that, his membership has been cleared
based on documents filed by the concerned society.
3.5. Via the abovementioned letter, recommendation has been made to take
necessary action(s) in the matter, for holding the draw of lots.
4. Mr. Pathak says that the writ petition can be closed, with a direction to
DDA to act expeditiously in the matter.
4.1. It is ordered accordingly.
4.2. The DDA will take the next steps in the matter, as early as possible.
5. Parties will have liberty to place the order passed by us today, before the
concerned officer of DDA.
6. The parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of this order.
7. The case papers shall stand consigned to record
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TALWANT SINGH, J
OCTOBER 25, 2021/ mr
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8210/2020 Page 3 of 3
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM
Signing Date:03.11.2021
17:16:41