WP(C) 13927/2009 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 18.12.2009 + W.P.(C) 13927/2009 SURESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner -versus- STATE AND ORS ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. G.S. Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : None CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has challenged the validity of Section 40(3) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 which contains a deeming provision that in case the resolution for expulsion of a member, passed by the managing committee of the society, is not considered by the Registrar and no order is passed within a period of 180 days, then there would be a WP(C) 13927/2009 Page 2 of 3 deemed approval of expulsion of the member. The plea taken by the petitioner is that this provision is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution as also the principles of natural justice inasmuch as merely because of the inaction on the part of the Registrar, the petitioner would suffer expulsion inasmuch as there would be deemed approval of the resolution passed by the managing committee if no decision is taken by the Registrar within 180 days. 2. However, we find that in the present case, the deeming provision of Section 40(3) is not in question at all, inasmuch as there is an order passed by the Registrar on 12.10.2009 whereby the approval of the expulsion of the petitioner has been granted. It is not a case of a deemed approval but of an order passed by the Registrar under Section 40 of the said Act. 3. However, on going through the impugned order, we find that there is no discussion with regard to the objections preferred by the petitioner and there are no reasons given as to why the expulsion was approved by the Registrar. The only reference to the objections preferred by the petitioner was that the petitioner had not been given a reasonable opportunity to represent himself in the matter before the managing committee. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the said submission, there were other submissions also on merits as to why the proposal for expulsion of the petitioner ought not to have been approved by the Registrar. None of these objections have been considered by the Registrar. WP(C) 13927/2009 Page 3 of 3 4. We feel that the impugned order is virtually a non-speaking order and, therefore, the same ought to be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Registrar for a decision afresh giving reasons with regard to each of the objections raised by the petitioner. 5. We are aware that Section 40(4) provides a remedy of appeal to any party aggrieved by the order of the Registrar passed under Section 40 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. However, since the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal is not functional at the present moment, we have taken this step of setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the Registrar for a fresh hearing and for passing an order giving reasons for the same inasmuch as the said remedy of appeal, in the present circumstances, is not an equally efficacious remedy. 6. The Registrar shall issue notice to the parties to appear before him, prior to proceeding with the matter. The writ petition stands disposed of. Dasti. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VEENA BIRBAL, J DECEMBER 18, 2009 srb