A successor’s membership claim warrants separate review where the society failed to regularize the predecessor.

The petitioner challenged the Assistant Registrar’s order dated 8 January 2024, which rejected her request for transfer of membership in respect of Flat No. A-209 in Shiv Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd.

She had been in possession of the flat since 2011.

The rejection was based, among other things, on the Society’s failure to regularise the membership of her predecessor, Ms. Dolly Arora alias Ms. Dolly Sapra, in accordance with the applicable rules.

The petitioner relied on an earlier writ petition in which she had been granted liberty to approach the Court if the Administrator did not take appropriate steps.

The Court noted that the present petition was filed after substantial delay and that the petitioner was a senior citizen.

1. Whether the petitioner could be prejudiced by the Society’s alleged failure to regularise her predecessor’s membership in accordance with the applicable procedure.

2. Whether the petitioner should pursue a revision under Section 116 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003, and what directions were appropriate for its consideration.

Section 116 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 provides for revision where an order is not appealable; the Court relied on Suresh Kumar Rathee v. Registrar Co-operative Group Housing Societies, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2923, for the proposition that a revision petition lies in such circumstances.

The Court also referred to Rule 19(2) and Rules 29 and 30 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 2007, which the RCS had found were not followed in relation to the original membership and transfer of shares.

The Court did not finally determine the petitioner’s entitlement to membership; it directed that the issue be considered by the Financial Commissioner after reviewing the Society’s records and the petitioner’s credentials.

The Court recognised that the predecessor’s membership had not been regularised and treated this as a deficiency in the petitioner’s case, but observed that the alleged procedural failure was attributable to the Society’s Management Committee and questioned whether the petitioner should bear its consequences.

Given that the petitioner had possessed the flat since 2011 and was a senior citizen, the Court considered her case deserving of separate examination rather than disposal as part of a group of matters involving different irregularities.

In light of the cited precedent, it directed the petitioner to seek revision under Section 116 and required the Financial Commissioner to consider the Society’s records, its position, and the petitioner’s credentials.

It directed her to file a revision petition under Section 116 within one month; required the Society and its Administrator to cooperate and produce the relevant records; and directed the Financial Commissioner to decide the revision within three months of filing.

The delay in filing the revision was condoned if filed within that one-month period, and all rights and contentions were left open.