Full Judgment Text
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 03.05.2019
% W.P.(C) 4706/2019
SUPREME COURT BAR COOPERATIVE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K. Rustogi with Mr. Akshit
Rastogi, Advs.
versus
REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES & ANR..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Santosh Kr. Tripathi, ASC with
Mr. Shashank Tiwari, Ms. Shivangi
Singh and Mr. Rishabh Oswal, Advs.
for R-1.
Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon and Ms.
Mamta Tandon, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)
C.M. No. 20893/2019
W.P.(C.) No. 4706/2019 Page 1 of 7
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application
stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4706/2019 & C.M. No. 20892/2019
2. At the outset, it has been made clear to learned counsels that one of us
(Vipin Sanghi, J) is a member of the petitioner society. Neither of the
counsels have an objection to this Bench hearing the matter.
3. The petitioner co-operative society has preferred the present writ
petition to assail the order dated 05.04.2019 passed by Shri B.S. Thakur,
Deputy Registrar in the Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies
under Section 139 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act. The Deputy
Registrar has allowed the said appeal preferred by respondent No. 3 and
directed the petitioner to provide the information which respondent No. 3
had sought from the petitioner within two weeks of the issuance of the said
order.
4. The respondent No. 3, admittedly, is a member of the petitioner
society. The information that she had sought from the petitioner society was
the following:
“1. A copy of the Application for Sanction, if any, filed
on behalf of the Society with relevant Municipal Authorities for
carrying out the subject Construction and Extension and
Alteration of Club Buildings and Structures, duly bearing
receipt of the application by the relevant Municipal Authorities.
2. A copy of the Sanction granted by the relevant
Municipal Authorities for activities listed in Para 1 above.
W.P.(C.) No. 4706/2019 Page 2 of 7
3. A copy of the architectural drawings (with each
revision, if any) duly certified by the Architect bearing date of
each version for the activities listed in Para 1 above.
4. A summary of expenses incurred and paid to each
agency including architect and each contractor / Sub-
contractor for each head of expense for the said activities.
5. Copy of application for change of usage of the
Community Centre /Club for Commercial activities like running
Arbitration Rooms.
7. Summary of annual Revenue earned from Arbitration
Rooms for each of the last five years.
8. Charges levied for arbitration rooms, and taxes levied
thereon.”
5. Since the said information was not provided, she had preferred the
appeal under Section 139 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act which
reads as follow:
“139. Right to information.
(1) Any member or creditor having interest in the affairs of
the co-operative society may seek information relating to any
transaction of the co-operative society and for that purpose
may be provided a certified copy of any document within thirty
days from the date of receipt of application relating to such
transaction on payment of such fee as may be specified.
(2) Where a member or creditor having interest in affairs of
a society seeking information prefers an appeal to the
Registrar stating that the officer of the society without any
reasonable cause, has refused to receive his application for
providing information or has not furnished information within
the time specified under sub-section (1) or has refused the
W.P.(C.) No. 4706/2019 Page 3 of 7
request for information or knowingly given incorrect
information or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the
information, the Registrar, after affording a reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the officer of the society and the
appellant, may either reject the appeal; or direct the officer of
the society to furnish information within the period specified in
the order or such extended period as may be allowed, and in
case of default the Registrar may impose a penalty of two
hundred and fifty rupees each day till the information is
furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall
not exceed ten thousand rupees which shall be recoverable as
arrears of land revenue in case of default in payment.”
6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy
Registrar had passed an order on 22.01.2019. On the said date, the
petitioner society had sought four weeks time to file a reply. The said
request was opposed by respondent No. 3. He submits that no effective
orders were passed on the said date accepting or declining the request of the
society. The petitioner was apprehensive that the Deputy Registrar would
pass an order on the said appeal without hearing the petitioner and,
consequently, sent a communication on 30.01.2019 that denial of
opportunity to the petitioner would be in violation of the principles of
natural justice.
7. Learned counsel further submits that a perusal of the order dated
22.01.2019 would show that the words “ kept for orders ” were added in
hand, and do not form part of the typed order passed by the Deputy Registrar
on the said date. He further submits that in breach of Section 139 and
without granting a hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order has been
W.P.(C.) No. 4706/2019 Page 4 of 7
passed in complete breach of the statutory requirement and the principles of
natural justice.
8. We have heard Mr. Rustogi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Though, one option available to us is to set aside the impugned order and
remand the case back to the Deputy Registrar for hearing, we are not
inclined to adopt that course. This is for the reason that we have invited
learned counsel for the petitioner to raise his objection to passing of an order
under Section 139 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act and we have
ourselves considered the submissions of Mr. Rustogi. We are inclined to
adopt this course, since the matter does not involve determination of
disputed questions of facts and is a plain and simple question which only
requires interpretation of the scope of the right of a member to demand
information from the society. Mr. Rustogi, however, submits that a post
decisional hearing at this stage by this Court would not suffice, since a
valuable right of the petitioner to oppose the appeal preferred by the
respondent under Section 139 has been denied to the petitioner. We cannot
agree because the issue raised is a simple question of interpretation of
statutory provision, and the jurisdiction to undertake that exercise primarily
falls upon the Courts.
9. The submission of Mr. Rustogi is that Section 139 (1) provides that
any member or creditor having interest in the affairs of the Co-operative
Society may seek information. However, this information, according to
him, can be sought, in relation to any transaction of the Co-operative Society
which pertains to the member or creditor, and not otherwise. He submits
W.P.(C.) No. 4706/2019 Page 5 of 7
that just because respondent No. 3 is a member of the Co-operative Society,
she is not entitled to seek information from the petitioner society of the
nature sought by her.
10. We cannot agree with this submission of Mr. Rustogi. The plain and
simple language of Section 139(1) does not put any embargo on the right of
a member or creditor, who has an interest in the affairs of the Co-operative
Society, to seek information relating to “ any transaction of the Co-operative
Society ”.
11. The Co-operative Society is a body created by a group of persons
collectively to achieve a particular object, and it must manage its affairs in a
democratic way in compliance of the Act in the Rules. The Co-operative
Society is a body which has to maintain complete transparency in its
functioning. All its actions are taken in a democratic way through managing
committee and its office bearers, who are answerable to the general body of
members. There is no activity or action that a Co-operative Society may
take, about which it can maintain any secrecy. A member of Co-operative
Society would, therefore, be entitled to seek any information in relation to
any transaction of the Co-operative Society. This right has been extended
even to a creditor, since he has a stake in the financial affairs of the Co-
operative Society.
12. Since respondent No. 3 is a member of the Co-operative Society, in
our view, her right to seek information that she has sought in relation to the
transactions of the petitioner society, cannot be denied.
W.P.(C.) No. 4706/2019 Page 6 of 7
13. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the present petition.
14. Dismissed.
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
REKHA PALLI, J.
MAY 03, 2019/ kd
W.P.(C.) No. 4706/2019 Page 7 of 7