B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J. - (1.) Heard the counsel for the parties. Leave granted.
(2.) Shakti Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. was formed with a view to provide house-sites to its members. A site was acquired but before the plots could be distributed among the members, disputes arose among them. Various groups in the society tried to gain control of the affairs of the society. Number of suits were filed and several interim orders obtained. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies found that on account of the infighting among the members the very object of the Government in providing land on concessional rate to the society stood in jeopardy. Evidently fed up with the unending disputes between the members, the Registrar passed an order forbidding holding of elections to the committee of the Society. This order of the Registrar was challenged in the Delhi High Court by way of a Writ Petition (No. 2920 of 1981). The writ petition came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court, S. B. Wad, J. The learned Judge made several attempts to resolve the differences between the parties but found ultimately that there was no room for any settlement. He heard the writ petition on merits and by his order dated 12-10-1982 dismissed the same. A Letters Patent Appeal was preferred against the said order. The Division Bench too undertook to settle the disputes among the members. It succeeded partially in doing so inasmuch as the Bench appointed, with the consent of the parties before it, an Administrator to take charge of the affairs of the society to finalise the membership list and to hold elections. On election of the new committee, the Administrator was to hand over the charge to such committee. A former Judge of the Delhi High Court Sri P. N. Khanna was appointed as the Administrator. In pursuance of the said settlement, several suits pending in the courts were withdrawn. The Administrator submitted his reports from time to time. Several persons who were not parties to the proceedings came forward claiming to be members of the society. The Administrator thoroughly examined all claims and prepared a list of 206 members. It was approved by the court by its order dated 19-8-1985. By this order, the Division Bench directed that no elections need take place as originally directed and that the power of allotment of plots be given to the said Administrator himself. This order too appears to be made on the basis of consent of the parties before the court. The Administrator was accordingly directed to proceed with the allotment of plots among the said 206 members. Four more members were added by a subsequent order. Some more applications were pending at that stage before the court claiming membership. After receiving the 7th and final report of the Administrator dated 17-5-1986, the court approved a list of 219 members by its order dated 19-5-1986. It also accepted the criteria for allotment of plots evolved by the Administrator. It gave certain directions for the future working of the society. The Registrar was asked to verify and adopt the list of members, submitted by the Administrator, within two months.
(3.) Before the directions of the court given on 19-5-1986 could be complied with, an application was filed before the court by certain members for review of the order dated 19-6-1986. They asked for a direction to the Administrator to prepare a fresh list of the members following the "simplified procedure" notified by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies through his letter dated 5-7-1977 addressed to all the House Building Co-operative Societies in Delhi. It was submitted that the said simplified procedure was being followed by all the Housing Societies in Delhi and that there is no reason why an exception should be made in the case of this society. Under an elaborate order dated 17th May, 1989 the Division Bench accepted the Review Petition and directed that Administrator to prepare a fresh list of members in accordance with the simplified procedure and to determine the entitlement to plots in terms of the said simplified procedure among the several members of the society. The Administrator was asked to complete the said exercise within the shortest possible time, to wit-two months. In accordance with the directions dated 17th May, 1989 the Administrator prepared and submitted his 10th report on 19th August, 1989. This list contained 221 members. This created a ticklish situation inasmuch as the total number of plots available was 210 whereas the number of members eligible was 221. Disputes again started as to the manner in which the plots should be distributed among members. Four members, appellants herein, preferred S.L.P No. 11072 of 1989 (from which this appeal arises) questioning the correctness of the order of the Division Bench dated 17th May, 1989. They were aggrieved by the fact that whereas their names were found far above serial No. 210 in the list approved by the court by its order dated 19th May, 1986, their names came down to 216 to 219 in the list prepared by the Administrator on the basis of simplified procedure. The available plots being 210, the logical consequence of the said demotion was that they may not be entitled to allotment of plots now. They would have to wait till the society acquires some other land and carves out plots.;