Society-caused membership irregularities require individual consideration before rejecting a successor’s claim.

The petitioner claimed possession of Flat A-105 in Shiv Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society since 1998, following a transaction with Raj Rani, and sought approval of his membership.

The Assistant Registrar rejected his claim on 2 August 2024, reasoning that Raj Rani’s membership and allotment had not been duly approved and that the transfer could not therefore be recognised under Section 91 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003.

The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings.

In the present petition, the Court noted the delay in challenging the order and the alleged failure of the Society’s former Managing Committee to regularise the predecessor’s membership.

Whether the petitioner should bear the consequences of the Society’s alleged failure to regularise the membership of his predecessor, despite his long-standing possession of the flat.

Whether the petitioner’s membership claim should be considered separately by the appropriate authority, with an opportunity to explain the circumstances and the Society’s records taken into account.

Section 116 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003 provides a revisionary remedy; relying on Suresh Kumar Rathee v. Registrar Co-operative Group Housing Societies, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2923, the Court noted that revision lies where an order is not appealable.

Section 91 of the Act, concerning membership following transfer of a flat, and Rules 19(2), 29 and 30 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 2007, were referred to in the impugned order in relation to approval and transfer procedures.

The Court did not finally determine the application of those provisions to the petitioner’s claim.

The Court recognised that the asserted irregularity concerned the Society’s handling of the predecessor’s membership, while the petitioner had been in possession since 1998.

It considered that the petitioner should not be held responsible without an individual examination of the circumstances and an opportunity to explain his case.

Given the challenge to the Assistant Registrar’s order was delayed, and noting the available revisionary remedy under Section 116, the Court directed the petitioner to pursue revision rather than determine the membership claim itself.

The Financial Commissioner must call for and consider the Society’s records, hear its position, verify the petitioner’s credentials, and decide the membership claim within three months of filing; the Society and its Administrator must cooperate and produce the records requested.

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