Membership claims require individual consideration where alleged irregularities stem from the society’s management committee.

The Petitioner, aged over 79 years, claimed possession of Flat No. C-207 in Shiv Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. since 1989 and sought approval and transfer of membership in his name.

The Assistant Registrar, RCS, by order dated 8 January 2024, rejected the request, holding that the Petitioner’s predecessor, Sandeep Mehra, had not been validly inducted or regularised as a member and that the Society had not followed Rule 19(2) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 2007.

The RCS further held that Sections 29 and 30 had not been followed in cases involving transfer to legal heirs or nominees, and that Section 91 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 (“DCS Act”) was inapplicable because the flat had never been allotted to the predecessors.

The Petitioner challenged the order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, relying also on an earlier order dated 12 December 2023 granting him liberty to approach the Court if appropriate steps were not taken.

Whether the Petitioner could be denied membership on account of procedural or regularisation failures attributable to the Society’s earlier Managing Committee, despite his possession of the flat since 1989.

Whether the Petitioner should pursue a revision under Section 116 of the DCS Act against the Assistant Registrar’s order, and whether the delay in doing so ought to be condoned.

Whether the legal regime applicable to the 1989 transactions, including the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 or the DCS Act, 2003, required determination by the competent authority on the basis of the factual record.

The Court considered Section 116 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003, under which a revision lies before the Financial Commissioner against an order that is not appealable, relying on Suresh Kumar Rathee v. Registrar Co-operative Group Housing Societies, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2923.

It also considered Section 91 of the DCS Act, 2003, concerning disputes relating to cooperative societies, and Rules 19(2), 29 and 30 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 2007, which prescribe procedures for induction or transfer of membership and transfer to legal heirs or nominees.

The Court recognised that disputed questions concerning the validity of the predecessor’s membership, the Society’s compliance with statutory procedures, and the applicability of the 1972 or 2003 legislation should ordinarily be determined by the competent statutory authority on the basis of the Society’s records.

The Court accepted that the predecessor’s membership had not been regularised and that the Society might have inducted members without obtaining RCS approval or following the prescribed procedure. However, it held that this deficiency could not automatically be attributed to the Petitioner, particularly since he had remained in possession of the flat since 1989.

The Petitioner’s case required individual consideration rather than determination as part of a general batch involving several alleged irregularities.

He had to be given an opportunity to explain the circumstances of the transaction, while the Society’s records and the parties’ competing positions had to be examined by the Financial Commissioner.

Since the issues involved factual determination and the appropriate statutory remedy was revision under Section 116, the Court directed the Petitioner to pursue that remedy instead of adjudicating the membership claim in writ jurisdiction.

In view of the Petitioner’s advanced age and his prolonged pursuit of membership, the Court also considered it appropriate to condone the delay, subject to filing the revision within the prescribed period.

The Financial Commissioner was directed to call for the Society’s records, consider the Society’s position, verify the Petitioner’s credentials, and decide the membership claim within three months of the revision being filed, while bearing in mind the practical difficulties likely to be faced by the Petitioner if membership were denied.

The Society and its Administrator were directed to cooperate and produce all records required.

The delay in filing the revision was condoned if filed within one month, and all rights and contentions of the parties were expressly kept open.