Delhi HC Orders Co-op Membership Approval For Flat-Seeker Despite CBI-Seized Originals, Subject To Affidavits And Indemnity

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner’s membership could be processed despite the absence of original documents reportedly seized by the CBI, where copies were available and the Society did not dispute his membership.

The court held

The Court disposed of the petition and directed the petitioner and the Society to file separate affidavits affirming that their submitted documents were true copies of the originals, and the petitioner to submit an indemnity bond.

It also directed

Subject to those filings, the RCS was to proceed with and approve the petitioner’s membership by 15 December 2026; the petitioner and Society’s office bearers were directed to appear before the RCS on 19 November 2026.

The RCS could seek confirmation from the CBI, but that inquiry was not to impede further processing or the RCS’s recommendation to the DDA.

If any documents were later found not to be genuine, action could be taken in accordance with law.

01Facts

The petitioner claimed he was admitted as a member of Arvind Co-operative Group Housing Ltd. in 2003, paid approximately ₹33,89,686, and was entitled to one of two unallotted flats.

pp. 1–4

He was excluded from the society’s 2012 draw of lots.

pp. 1–4

The Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS) had not approved his membership, citing missing original records and an issue concerning a pending CBI prosecution.

pp. 1–4

The Society’s records contained copies of documents relating to the petitioner, while the originals were stated to have been seized by the CBI in 2005–06.

pp. 4–7

The Society also confirmed that the petitioner’s dues had been paid.

pp. 4–7

The petitioner sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

p. 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner’s membership could be processed despite the absence of original documents reportedly seized by the CBI, where copies were available and the Society did not dispute his membership.

pp. 3–6, 8

ii.2. Whether the RCS could continue to raise objections or delay processing membership on that basis, and what safeguards or directions were appropriate.

pp. 6–9

03Law Applied

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to address the delayed processing of the petitioner’s membership.

p. 1

It applied the principle that a genuine member should not be made to suffer for the Society’s record-related lapses, particularly where obtaining originals had become practically impossible because they were reportedly seized by the CBI.

p. 6

The Court also relied on the approach in Bhupendra Singh Kalakoti v. M.G. Sathya & Anr., CONT.CAS(C) 647/2023, under which the RCS could seek confirmation of the existence of documents from the CBI at its own level.

pp. 4–6

04Reasoning

The Society’s records contained copies relating to the petitioner, the Society did not dispute his membership, and the available receipts showed payments.

pp. 6–8

The Court accepted that the originals were unavailable because they had reportedly been seized by the CBI, making their production an impracticable condition for processing membership.

pp. 6–8

It also relied on the Society’s 9 April 2017 letter confirming that the petitioner’s dues were paid, which the Society did not dispute.

pp. 6–8

To address the RCS’s concerns without penalising the petitioner for missing originals, the Court required affidavits confirming the copies and an indemnity bond, while permitting the RCS to seek CBI confirmation without halting the membership process.

pp. 8–9