Court’s Decision: The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondent society to submit all necessary documents for verification to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS) within four weeks. The RCS is instructed to complete the formalities and present the case to the Rule 90 Committee for allotment of Flat No. 570/A-432 in the petitioner’s favor within six weeks thereafter.
Facts of the Case:
- The petitioner’s mother became a member of the respondent society in 1986, and her membership was transferred to the petitioner in 1991, making him eligible for an ‘A’ type flat.
- Circulars issued by the RCS in 1992 and 1994 initially relaxed the requirement of Delhi residency for society membership, which was later reintroduced in 1997.
- A 2022 judgment declared the 1997 notification, which mandated a three-year Delhi residency for society membership, unenforceable due to lack of gazetting.
- The society raised objections, questioning the petitioner’s eligibility, claiming neither he nor his mother was a Delhi resident, a contention not previously enforced.
Issues:
- Whether the transfer of membership to the petitioner, a non-resident of Delhi, is valid.
- Whether the society can now contest the petitioner’s entitlement to the flat based on residency requirements that were not enforced at the time of transfer.
Petitioner’s Arguments: The petitioner argued that he has a legitimate right to the flat as the transfer of membership was valid, and subsequent inquiries affirmed his eligibility.
Respondent’s Arguments: The society argued that the petitioner’s mother was never a Delhi resident, making her initial membership invalid and thus invalidating the petitioner’s membership. The society relied on its bylaws, which mandate Delhi residency for membership.
Analysis of the Law: The court noted that the RCS’s 1992 and 1994 circulars, which relaxed the Delhi residency requirement, were in force when the membership was transferred to the petitioner. Later notifications mandating residency could not retrospectively invalidate earlier memberships.
Precedent Analysis: The court cited the T.N. Haokip case, where a similar residency requirement was struck down due to improper gazetting. Since the membership transfer occurred before the 1997 notification, the petitioner’s case did not fall under the invalidated residency rule.
Court’s Reasoning: The court found that the society’s delayed objections to the membership’s validity were baseless, as there had been no initial objections during the transfer. Furthermore, repeated inquiries upheld the petitioner’s eligibility for the flat.
Conclusion: The court held that the petitioner’s right to the flat was valid and directed the society and the RCS to facilitate the formal allotment without further delay.
Implications: This judgment reinforces the significance of procedural consistency and the inability of cooperative societies to retrospectively impose residency requirements. It underscores the importance of abiding by prior approvals and administrative findings to prevent arbitrary denials of legitimate claims.
