- (1.) The appellant-society calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of the Delhi High Court whereby it was held that respondents 1 to 3 were not defaulters and, therefore, demands raised against them for the period to 4th August, 1984 were unsustainable. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were the writ petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 in the writ petition filed by them before the High Court. There was further direction given by the High Court that there may have been many members to whom similar demands have been sent. They were also entitled to refund of any payment taken by the society from them.
(2.) Writ application was filed by the respondents with prayer to quash the order dated 1-2-2003 issued by the Election Officer of the appellant-society and for setting aside the orders dated 23-1-2003 passed by him and for a direction for carrying out fresh inquiry regarding defaulters. They had filed nomination for the post of President. Member and Vice-President of the society for the election which was scheduled to be held on 1-2-2003. A bare reading of the writ petition shows that they were not satisfied with the list of defaulters prepared. The writ petition was filed on 8-1-2003. An affidavit was filed by the Secretary of the appellant-society indicating as to how the stand of the writ petitioners about they being not defaulters was not correct. It has been specifically pointed out that in the petition before this Court that the books of accounts and correspondences were produced on 2-7-2003. Matter was listed on 25-7-2003 but no hearing took place on account of lawyers' strike at the Delhi High Court. But the appellant's officers were present in the Court with the books of accounts and the records.
(3.) The High Court seems to have adjudicated as to whether the writ petitioners were defaulters or not. Reference was made to a letter dated 4-8-1984 wherein it has been stated that no dues were outstanding against Shri Rajesh and Shri Rajiv Chawla holders of plot No. 230, Sector VIII. Whether there was any amount outstanding would not normally and could not effectively and finally be adjudicated in a writ petition and that too filed against a decision incidentally rendered in the course of election proceedings by the Election Officer. Separate forums are available in the statutory governing and functioning of co-operative society whereunder only such issues affecting substantial civil rights of parties could be got adjudicated. The High Court seems to have not considered all such relevant aspects and seems to have proceeded superficially and summarily. Prayer in the writ petition was to the following effect : "(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other like writ or order or direction directing the second and the third respondent to enquire into the alleged List of Defaulters submitted to them by the present Managing Committee of the Society. (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other like writ or direction or order directing the second and the third respondent to prepare, after holding the necessary enquiry, a fresh and actual List of Defaulters of the members of the Society; (iii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other like writ or direction or order quashing the Notification dated 6-1-2002 proposing to hold elections of the Managing Committee of the Society on the 1-2-2003; (iv) Issue a writ of prohibition or like writ, order or direction, prohibiting the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein from holding the election of the members of the Society on 1-2-2003; and (v) pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to do complete justice between the parties.";