Hardeep Singh vs Registrar Of Cooperative Societies & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~55
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Decision: 4 November, 2026
th
Uploaded on : 10 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010260302025
+ W.P.(C) 5763/2025 and CM APPL. 25746/2026
HARDEEP SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nitish Chaudhary and Mr. Saurav
Joon, Adv.
versus
REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES
& ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Urvi Mohan, Adv. for RCS.
Mr. G. S. Oberoi, SC DDA, Mr. Ankur
Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE DINESH BHATT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner – Hardeep Singh
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of appropriate
directions for allotment of a flat in the Respondent No.3 society i.e., Arvind
Co-operative Group Housing Ltd. (hereinafter, ‘the Society’) .
3. The case of the Petitioner is that he was admitted as a member of the
th
Society on 12 March, 2003 vide Membership No. 123. All payments were
made by the Petitioner for fulfilling the financial obligations incidental to the
membership. The total payment made by the Petitioner is stated to be
approximately Rs. 33,89,686/-.
4. The Society had a total of 114 flats and 2 flats out of the same were not
allotted. It is the case of the Petitioner that out of the said 2 flats, one was due
W.P.(C) 5763/2025 Page 1 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:06:09
to be allotted to the Petitioner.
5. The draw of lots in the society was held sometime in 2012 by the
Respondent No. 2– Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter, ‘DDA’) .
However, the Petitioner was not included in the said draw of lots.
6. Further, the case of the Petitioner is that repeated representations have
been made on his behalf to the society and several inquiries have also been
made. However, no action had been taken.
7. The Petitioner has thereafter been informed in an RTI response that his
membership has not been approved due to a charge sheet which was filed by
the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) being CBI No. 22/2008 (New No.
53/2016), wherein the Petitioner has also been charge-sheeted and trial is
presently underway.
8. On 9th May, 2025, after hearing the submissions made by the ld.
Counsel for the Petitioner, this Court had directed as under:
“[...] 9. Heard. Issue notice to the Respondents.
10. Let the Respondent No. 1- Registrar of
Cooperative Societies look into the matter and state as
to whether there is any other reason due to which the
membership of the society is not being allotted to the
Petitioner. If the only reason for not allotting the said
membership is the pendency of the CBI case, then the
Society / Registrar of Cooperative Societies can even
consider the grant of membership and allotment of the
flat, subject to the outcome of the said case being CBI
No. 22/2008 (New No. 53/2016). Let the decision be
taken by the Society/ Registrar of Cooperative Societies
and the same be placed on the record by the next date of
hearing.
11. Let counter affidavit be filed by the
Respondents within four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if
W.P.(C) 5763/2025 Page 2 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:06:09
any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.
12. Issue notice to all other Respondents. List
before Joint Registrar on 23rd July, 2025 for completion
of pleadings.
13. List before Court on 25th September, 2025.”
9. As can be seen from the above order, notice was issued in the present
petition and Respondent No.1-the Registrar of Cooperative Societies
( hereinafter ‘RCS’) was supposed to look into the matter and state as to
whether there was any reason why the membership of the Society was not
being allotted to the Petitioner.
10. Thereafter, on 25th September, 2026, the Court had also noted that if
the only reason for non-allotment of the membership is the pendency of the
CBI case, the same would be allotted, subject to the outcome to the said case.
11. Despite these being the directions of the Court, very little progress has
been made towards the finalisation of the membership of the Petitioner.
12. The matter has been taken up for hearing from time to time. Today, ld.
Counsel for the RCS has placed a status report filed under the signatures of
Deputy registrar, H/See-01, on behalf of the RCS.
13. As per the said status report, the RCS has given various reasons as to
why the membership of the Petitioner has not been approved as yet. The main
reason seems to be the non-existence of certain original documents which
have not been produced by the Society before the RCS. The details of the said
original documents are as under:
W.P.(C) 5763/2025 Page 3 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:06:09
S. No. Details of the Documents Objections
1. Application for Membership Not produced
2. Original Affidavit filed at Time of
A photocopy of the
Enrolment
same dated 30th
August, 2026 has been
furnished
3. Managing Committee Resolution Not Produced
4. Share Certificate Though the original
share certificate has
been given, the same
does not bear the
signature of the
President.
5. Membership Register Neither original nor
CBI certified copy
shown.
14. The RCS has, therefore, placed the blame squarely at the door of the
Society for not producing the record.
15. In addition, an issue about the No-dues certificate of the Petitioner has
also been raised.
16. The President of the Society- Mr. Jai Bhagwan Chahar is present in
Court today, along with the original file of the records of the Society.
17. A perusal of the original file of the Society would show that copies of
various documents relating to the Petitioner are in the records of the Society,
and the Society does not dispute the membership of the Petitioner.
18. Ld. Counsel for the Society has relied upon the order dated 15th
September, 2026, passed by the ld. Single Judge of this Court in
W.P.(C) 5763/2025 Page 4 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:06:09
CONT.CAS(C) 647/2023 titled ‘ Bhupendra Singh Kalakoti v. M.G. Sathya
& Anr .
19. In the said case, in respect of another member of the Society, who is
similarly placed, the ld. Single Judge had directed that the RCS would confirm
the factum of the existence of the documents from the CBI, at its own level,
and do the needful in terms of the directions passed by this Court.
20. The relevant portion of the said order is set out below:
3. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents-
RCS submits that the documents, of which original
copies are sought by the respondents-RCS, have been
confiscated by the Central Bureau of Investigation
(“CBI”).
4. He draws the attention of this Court to paragraph 11
of the aforesaid Status Report of the respondents-RCS,
wherein, the said submission made on behalf of the
Arvind Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited
(“Society”) has been recorded.
“xxx xxx xxx
11. That the society has failed to produce
original Membership Register which
essentially records the data of
enrolment/resignation of members viz. date of
enrolment, serial no. of members, addresses
of members, occupation details, nominee etc.
It has been submitted that the original register
is in custody of CBI. However, CBI certified
copy has not been produced instead a illegible
photocopy of some document claimed to be
membership register has been shown which
cannot be taken as genuine on its face. xxx xxx
xxx”
5. Learned counsel for the respondents-RCS submits
that the Society and the petitioner can file certified
W.P.(C) 5763/2025 Page 5 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:06:09
copies of the requisite documents, as obtained from the
CBI.
6. However, this Court is of the considered view that
no such certified copies can be obtained from the CBI,
either by the petitioner or by the Society.
7. Accordingly, the respondents-RCS is directed to
confirm the said factum from the CBI, at its own level,
and do the needful in terms of the directions passed by
this Court. 8. List on 04th November, 2026 .”
21. The Court has heard the ld. Counsels for the Petitioner, the RCS and
the Society. Having perused the Society’s record, the Court is convinced that
there is no genuine objection or doubt as to the Petitioner’s membership.
Some original documents are on the record of the Society, such as receipts
which show payments of various amounts.
22. Copies of all the documents have been furnished, only the originals are
not available, as they are stated to have been seized by the CBI in year 2005-
06.
23. In the opinion of this Court, the member, who is a genuine member of
the Society, cannot be made to suffer for any lapses of the Society. The RCS
may be right in insisting on original documents, however, in effect today,
there appears to be an impossibility in obtaining the original documents as
they are no longer with the Society.
24. Further, insofar as the outstanding dues towards the Society are
concerned, the Managing Committee of the Society vide letter dated 9th April,
th
2017 pertaining to resolution passed in meeting held on 9 April, 2017
(hereinafter, ‘letter dated 9th April, 2017’) has stated that all dues are paid by
the Petitioner. The said letter is as under:
W.P.(C) 5763/2025 Page 6 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:06:09
25. The two members in respect of whom the said letter was issued is Mr.
Bhupinder Singh Kalakoti, who is the Petitioner in CONT.CAS(C) 647/2023
and the Petitioner herein.
W.P.(C) 5763/2025 Page 7 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:06:09
26. At this stage, the President of the Society – Mr. Jai Bhagwan Chahar
who is present today, submits that there is no dispute as to the extract of the
letter dated 9th April, 2017, though the original register of the Managing
Committee’s resolution is not available with the Society, and the same is with
the CBI.
27. A perusal of the letter dated 9th April, 2017 extracted hereinabove
would show that the same has been confirmed by the Secretary of the Society
at the relevant point in time. Thus, there is no reason why this letter should be
suspected.
28. In this background, the following directions are issued:
(i) Separate Affidavits to be filed : Insofar as the documents which
are required by the RCS are concerned, let the Petitioner and the
Society file two separate affidavits before the RCS affirming that the
documents submitted by them are true copies of the original documents.
(ii) Submission of Indemnity Bond: The Petitioner shall also file an
indemnity bond before the RCS.
(iii) Approval of Membership and Timeline for decision
(a) Subject to receipt of the affidavits and the indemnity bond, the
RCS shall proceed further and approve the membership of the
Petitioner.
th
(b) Let the decision in this regard be taken by 15 December, 2026 .
The Petitioner and the Society’s office bearers shall appear before the
th
RCS on 19 November, 2026 at 2:30 p.m .
29. Upon submission of the affidavits and indemnity bond, no further
objections shall be raised by the RCS. If the RCS requires any further
confirmation, they are free to adopt the same course of action as was directed
W.P.(C) 5763/2025 Page 8 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:06:09
th
in the order dated 15 September, 2026 passed in CONT.CAS(C) 647/2023
and obtain confirmation from the CBI at its own level.
30. However, the said confirmation would not in any manner impede the
further processing of the membership and the recommendation of the RCS in
favour of the Petitioner to the DDA. If, however, any documents are found to
be not genuine, this order would not come in the way of the RCS or the Society
taking action against the Petitioner in accordance with law, at a future stage.
31. The petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if
any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
DINESH BHATT
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 4, 2026
Rahul/A/sm
W.P.(C) 5763/2025 Page 9 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing Date:10.11.2026
20:06:09