Vineet Bhardwaj vs Registrar Cooperative Society - Membership Dispute

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 4, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Vineet Bhardwaj vs Registrar Of Cooperative Society & Anr on 19 March, 2026

Author: Prathiba M. Singh

Bench: Prathiba M. Singh

$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19th March, 2026
Uploaded on: 24th March, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 13201/2024
VINEET BHARDWAJ .....Petitioner
Through: Ms Rashmi Jain and Akhil Kumar
Beriwal, Advs.
versus
REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETY & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Gagan Kumar, Ms. Puja Jakhar,
Mr. Suraj Dhawan, Advs.
Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Mr. Ujjwal
Jain, Advs.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

1.  The present petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking clearance of the
                     Petitioner's membership in Respondent No. 2 - Gulshan-E-Iqbal CGHS Ltd.
                     (hereinafter "the Society").
   

2.  The brief facts of the case are that the Society had published on 23rd
                     May, 2013 a public notice in two newspapers i.e., Veer Arjun (Hindi) and The
                     Hindu (English), in respect of one vacancy of membership therein. In
                     response to the said notice, 24 applications had been received, out of which
                     10 were rejected. In respect of the remaining 14 applications which were
                     approved, including the Petitioner's application, a draw of lots was conducted
                     by the Society on 21st June 2013 and the membership was allotted to the
                     Petitioner.
   

Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 13201/2024 Page 1 of 11 NEGI Signing Date:24.03.2026 18:34:28 4. Further to the above, a Demand-cum-Allotment letter was issued to the
Petitioner on 24th June, 2013 along with a share certificate with membership
no. 398. The Petitioner was also asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,68,610/-
within 30 days and the said amount was duly deposited.

1. However, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (hereinafter "RCS") refused to approve the said allotment on the ground that there was a violation of Rule 19(2) of the Delhi Cooperative Society Rules, 2007 (hereinafter "DCS Rules"). As per the said Rule, the RCS was required to be intimated within 15 days of the vacancy arising, and thereafter, an advance copy of the public notice in the newspaper had to be sent to the RCS. In addition to this, at the time of draw of lots an official of the RCS ought to have been present, but the draw of lots was conducted only in the presence of the President. For ease of reference, the Rule 19(2) of the DCS Rules is extracted hereunder:

"19. Conditions to be complied with for admission to
membership:-

(1) [...]

(2) In case of vacancy in a co-operative housing society
the Registrar shall be intimated within a period of fifteen
days of the vacancy and the same shall be filled by the
committee by notifying it in leading national dailies/
newspapers of Delhi in Hindi and English. An advance
copy of the advertisement shall be sent to Registrar for
displaying the same on the website. In case the number
of applications are more than the notified vacancies the
membership shall be finalized through draw of lot in the
presence of authorized representative of the Registrar.
Further if vacancy has arisen due to resignation of a
member, then the resignation shall be made public by
publishing in leading newspapers and the Registrar shall
be informed of the same before publishing it alongwith Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 13201/2024 Page 2 of 11 NEGI Signing Date:24.03.2026 18:34:28 the copy of the same and proof of payment of the share
money and contribution etc. which shall be made through
cheque."

1.  In view of the objection raised by the RCS, the Society did not proceed
                     further. However, it is relevant to highlight that the Society did not refund the
                     amount to the Petitioner as well.
   

2.  Accordingly, when the concerned flat was not allotted to the Petitioner,
                     the Petitioner filed a claim for arbitration under [Section 70](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/42735337/) of the Delhi
                     Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 (hereinafter "DCS Act") which was referred
                     to a Sole Arbitrator. The Sole Arbitrator vide Award dated 6th March, 2017 in
                     Arb. Case No. 95/GH/DR/ARB/2013-14 held as under:
   

"(i) The then President of Respondent Society had been
taken course of action of filling up one vacancy of society
left out only after authorised by the Managing Committee
in its meeting on 11.5.2013. The President of the
Respondant Society was present at the time of draw and
shown the resolution declaring him fully authorised by
the Managing Committee in the MC meeting on
11.5.2013 so the draw is legal and legitimate and he was
responsible to manage the representative of the RCS, in
his absence the draw could have not been declared. The
advertisement was cancelled by the RCS communicated
on 26.8.2013 which in violation of Rule 19(2) of DCS
Rules, after the draw, acceptance of money from the
claimant. The act of the President is in gross violation of
the provisions contained in the DCS Act and Rules.

(ii). The Respondant Society neither communicated to the
Claimant in respect of cancellation of his claim to be a
member of the society nor refunded the money deposited
with, the Respondant Society which is against the
provisions of the DCS Act and Rules. Even, the claimant
was not given opportunity of personal hearing by the Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 13201/2024 Page 3 of 11 NEGI Signing Date:24.03.2026 18:34:28 society before cancellation of his claim.

(iii) As per provision under clause 12(a) of bye laws of
the Respondent Society, the claimant has paid the share
amount. Subsequently, as per provision under clause 12

(b) the share certificate issued in favour of the claimant.
The Respondant Society has failed to give the
possession of flat against the membership
allotted/share certificate issued to the claimant after
depositing of all money Rs. 25,68,610/- as demanded by
the Respondent Society.

(iv) The Respondant Society without waiting the
decisions of the RCS in respect of its correspondence
dated. 07.06.2013 had called the GBM on 04.08.2013.
The Respondant Society did not followed the provision
under clause 18 (c) of the Bye-laws and the time was
given. only 10 days for calling GBM while there is
provision of 14 days clearly in advance as the notice
dated 17 July, 2013 was issued on 26.07.2013 (through
Speed post), which was in violation of this provision. The
RCS vide communication dated 26.08.2013 had
cancelled the advertisement dated 23.05.2013 issued by
the Respondant Society. The RCS is the sole protector of
the DCS Act and Rules has final authority to say in the
functioning of the societies appropriately in accordance
with the provisions of the DCS Act, 2003 and DCS Rules
2007. The then President and the members of the
Managing Committee had acted upon on behalf of the
Respondant Society prevailing the situation of that time.
It is observed from the entire exercise made by them
having lack of knowledge to apply the DCS Act and
Rules, committed mistake to fill up one vacancy without
obtaining the permission of the RCS. However, the
Claimant had complied with the instruction of the
Respondant society in the entire matter. (v) Considering
the facts and circumstances of this matter, the foundation
for calling the applications from the public through Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 13201/2024 Page 4 of 11 NEGI Signing Date:24.03.2026 18:34:28 Public Notice/advertisement dated 23.05.2013 has been
refused by the RCS. However, the claim of the claimant
can not be ruled out as he has complied the instructions
of the Respondant Society il the matter. Therefore, the
Respondant Society may take appropriate steps to settle
the issue with the claimant in accordance with the
provisions under the DCS Act and Rules. However,
keeping in view of the natural justice to be extended to
the Claimant, the Respondant Society may take course of
action under the DCS Act and Rules, with the permission
of the RCS to regularize the claim of the claimant.

(vi) Respondent society may take appropriate action
under Section 77 (2) against the then office bearer who
had taken such decision against the violation of the
provisions of DCS Act and Rules.

(vii) The parties may bear their own cost."

1. The said Award was challenged by the Society before the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal (hereinafter "DCT") which vide order dated 6th July, 2018 upheld the Award and directed regularisation of the draw of lots conducted by the Society as also handing over of the possession of the flat to the Petitioner. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated 6th July, 2018 reads as under:

"24. In our considered view, it is a fit case for
invocation of provisions of Section 39 of the DCS
Act which has been rightly done by ld. Arbitrator
who after making other observations has directed
the appellant society to take, appropriate steps to
settle the issue with the claimant in accordance
with the provisions of /DCS Act' & Rules, in order
to regularise the claim of RI (claimant) and for
handing over the possession of the flat. Ld. Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 13201/2024 Page 5 of 11 NEGI Signing Date:24.03.2026 18:34:28 Arbitrator has also directed the appellant society
to take appropriate action u/s 77(2) against the
then office bearers of the appellant society.

1. There is no illegality, infirmity or impropriety in the impugned award. Therefore, the impugned award does not warrant any interference. The appeal is therefore, dismissed."
2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that, till date, the Petitioner has not been allotted the concerned flat. The Petitioner had also written various letters to the RCS but to no avail.

1. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the RCS the Petitioner had preferred
                     the W.P.(C) 10515/2019, wherein on 24th March, 2023, the Court was
                     informed by the ld. Counsel for the RCS, that the case of the Petitioner has
                     been recommended to be placed before the committee constituted under Rule
                     90 of the DCS Rules (hereinafter "Rule 90 Committee,").
   

2. The Rule 90 Committee in its meeting dated 27th October, 2023 after
                     considering all the background facts, came to the conclusion that the initial
                     allotment was in violation of Rule 19(2) of the DCS Rules as the vacancy was
                     filled up by the then President of the Managing Committee of the Society in
                     the absence of other members of the Committee. In addition, Rule 19(2) of
                     the DCS Act was also violated due to the fact that the RCS official was also
                     not present during the draw of lots. The operative portion of the minutes of
                     meeting of the Rule 90 committee dated 27th October, 2023 reads as under:-
   

"OBSERVATIONS OF THE RULE 90
COMMITTEE:- The Committee carefully considered the agenda as
placed before it. It was noted that enrolment of Sh.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 13201/2024 Page 6 of 11 NEGI Signing Date:24.03.2026 18:34:28 Vineet Bhardwaj as member of the Society was in
violation of Rule 19(2) of DCS Rules 2007 as the
Vacancy was filled up by the then President of the
MC of the Society without presence of even other
members of MC and the Society did not comply
with the directions of RCS to advertise the vacancy
again as per Rule 19(2). Since the enrolment was
itself void ab-initio, there is no question of its
regularisation.

Moreover the case was not required to be placed
before the Committee as RCS has not
recommended the case to be in accordance with DCS Act, 2003 and DCS Rules, 2007 being
violative of Rule 19 (2) of DCS of Rules 2007 as
required under Section 77 of DCS Act and Rule 90
of DCS Rules, 2007. RCS, being the Statutory
Authority should take action as per Act and Rules
after apprising the Hon'ble High Court and after
the matter is decided by the Hon'ble High Court."

1. The W.P.(C) 10515/2019 was disposed of vide order dated 18th July, 2024 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the minutes of meeting of the Rule 90 Committee as extracted above, in the following terms:

"[...]

1. It is pertinent to mention that the present writ
   petition has been filed seeking approval of
   membership and allotment of flat to the petitioner
   against a vacancy in the cooperative society.
   During the pendency of the present petition, the
   matter was referred to the Rule 90 Committee.

2. The respondents have placed on record the
   minutes of the meeting dated 27th October, 2023 of
   the Rule 90 Committee wherein the petitioner's
   request for allotment of flat was rejected on the Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 13201/2024 Page 7 of 11 NEGI Signing Date:24.03.2026 18:34:28 ground that Rule 19(2) of DCS Rules, 2007 had
   been violated by the cooperative society. In view of
   the subsequent development, the present writ
   petition is dismissed.

3. However, the petitioner is given liberty to
   challenge the decision dated 27th October, 2023 in
   accordance with law. The rights and contentions of
   all the parties are left open"

4. As can be seen from the above order the Petitioner was permitted to
                     challenge the decision of the Rule 90 Committee. Pursuant to the said liberty
                     given to the Petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the
                     following reliefs:
   

"A. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari
and/or any other appropriate Writ to quash/set
aside the decision dated 27.10.2023 given by the
respondent no.1 in the minutes of the Board
meeting by the Respondent No. 1.

B. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or
any other appropriate Writ thereby command the
Respondent No. 1 to clear the membership of the
petitioner and hand over the possession of the flat
to the petitioner.

C. Pass any other such order(s) as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case."
14. The ld. Counsels for the parties have been heard. The submission of ld.
Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner ought not to be punished for
any irregularity committed by the Society or the then President of its
Managing Committee. The Petitioner had responded to the public notice Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA W.P.(C) 13201/2024 Page 8 of 11 NEGI Signing Date:24.03.2026 18:34:28 issued by the Society, deposited the amount demanded towards the allotment
of membership and has been waiting since 2013 for allotment of the
concerned flat.

1. It is submitted by ld. Counsel that any infraction of Rule 19 of the DCS
                     Rules by the Society cannot visit upon the Petitioner with such drastic
                     consequences.
   

2. On behalf of the Society, Mr. Gagan Kumar, ld. Counsel submits that
                     then President of the Managing Committee of the Society had committed an
                     irregularity and the allotment in favour of the Petitioner was mala fide as the
                     mandatory Rule 19(2) of the DCS Rules had been violated. As per ld. Counsel
                     for the Society, the requirement under Rules 19(2) of the DCS Rules, of
                     intimating the RCS prior to publication and the presence of the RCS official
                     at the time of draw of lots have both not been complied in this case.
   

3. On behalf of the RCS, Mr. Abhinav Sharma, ld. Counsel submits that
                     the public notice which was published by the Society was communicated to
                     the RCS only after the draw of lots was held. Hence, the entire process is itself
                     vitiated.
   

4. Heard. The Society has a total of 135 members and one vacancy had
                     arisen in respect of which the public notice was published in two newspapers
                     being Veer Arjun (Hindi) and The Hindu (English). The Society had the
                     obligation to intimate the RCS in advance of publication of the advertisement
                     in terms of Rule 19(2) of the DCS Rules. As per the Counter Affidavit on
                     behalf of RCS, vide letter dated 7th June, 2013 the Society had intimated the
                     RCS about the publication of the public notice on 23rd May, 2013. Thereafter,
                     the draw of lots was decided to be held on 21st June, 2013. Thus, there is no
                     dispute that the public notice was first published in the newspaper and was Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA          W.P.(C) 13201/2024                                                 Page 9 of 11 NEGI Signing Date:24.03.2026 18:34:28 thereafter communicated with the RCS. However, the RCS failed to depute
                     any official for the draw of lots held on 23rd May, 2013, and if the same had
                     been deputed, in the opinion of the Court, this entire dispute itself would not
                     have arisen.
   

5.  This Court has, in a few cases, to meet the ends of justice, even
                     approved self-draw of lots by the societies. In [Sh. Rajeev Saxena & Ors. vs.
                     Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors., W.P.(C](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/190003508/)) 12218/2021, this Court
                     considering the noting of the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor dated 20th
                     September, 2011, qua opportunity for regularisation of self-draw, had held
                     that such opportunity of regularization ought to be granted where there is no
                     irregularity in the allotment. In this case, none of the other contesting
                     members whose applications were approved i.e., the remaining 13 applicants
                     have raised any objection in respect of the allotment to the Petitioner. The
                     Petitioner has already deposited the entire demanded amount and the Award
                     dated 6th March, 2017 is in the favour of the Petitioner. The DCT has also
                     taken view in favour of the Petitioner and has directed regularisation as also
                     handing over of the possession of the flat to the Petitioner.
   

6. Under such circumstances, when the ld. Arbitrator and the DCT, have
                     already taken a view in the favour of the Petitioner, this Court does not deem
                     it fit to interfere in the same, as the Petitioner is an individual who had, prima
                     facie, genuinely in a bona fide manner participated in the draw of lots pursuant
                     to the public notice which was published by the Society.
   

7. In so far as the Petitioner is concerned no fault can be attributed to the
                     Petitioner and it is due to this very reason that the ld. Arbitrator and the DCT
                     have taken a view in favour of the Petitioner.
   

8. Under these circumstances this Court is of the view that the mere Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA          W.P.(C) 13201/2024                                                  Page 10 of 11 NEGI Signing Date:24.03.2026 18:34:28 infraction of Rule 19(2) of DCT Rules by the Society cannot result in injustice
                     to the Petitioner who is not to be blamed. The affairs of the Society were not
                     being managed by the Petitioner and it is for the Managing Committee to run
                     the Society in accordance with law. Hence, the Petitioner cannot be made to
                     suffer. More than 13 years have passed, since the amount was deposited and
                     the Society has also enjoyed the amount. The successor Managing
                     Committees also did not take a fair view and resolve the issues with the
                     Petitioner.
   

9. Accordingly, the Rule 90 Committee's decision dated 27th October,
                     2023 is set aside. The possession of the vacant flat in the society shall be
                     handed over to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks from today.
   

10. Needless to add, after receiving possession, the Petitioner is free to
                      approach the authorities for the purpose of conversion of the flat from lease
                      hold to free hold. If such an application or request is made the RCS shall
                      process the same and recommend the Petitioner to the DDA. The Petitioner
                      shall however, be obliged to make all the payments of maintenance etc. from
                      the date when he acquires possession and if any other dues are there it should
                      also be paid within a period of one month after the demand is raised.
    

11. The present petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending
                      applications, if any, are also disposed of.
    

PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE

                                                                                MADHU JAIN
                                                                                  JUDGE
                      MARCH 19, 2026/prg/msh Signature Not Verified Signed By:RENUKA          W.P.(C) 13201/2024                                                Page 11 of 11 NEGI Signing Date:24.03.2026 18:34:28