Full Judgment Text
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