WP(C) 2583/2005 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 2583/2005 GOVT. SERVANTS COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikram Nandrajog, Adv. versus REGISTRAR CO-OP. SOCIETIES & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: None. % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in YES the Digest? J U D G M E N T Siddharth Mridul, J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 4th January, 2005 whereby the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in exercise of powers vested under Section 55 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 (in short „Act‟) appointed an inquiry officer to look into the allegations made in the representation made by certain members of the Petitioner-Society. WP(C) 2583/2005 Page 2 of 3 2. The short question that arises for consideration is when under Section 55 of the said Act, the Registrar is competent to order an inquiry and the circumstances under which such an enquiry can be so directed. 3. Section 55 of the Act reads as under: “(1) The Registrar may of his own motion or on the application of majority of the committee or of not less than one third of the members, hold an inquiry or direct some person authorized by him by order in writing in this behalf to hold an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a co-operative society. ……………” 4. The submission made on behalf of learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed by the Registrar on the representation made by certain members of the Petitioner-Society that do not number one third of the membership of the society, whose total number of members is 1633. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that only 18 members of the said Society preferred the complaint to the Registrar. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the impugned order also does not spell out that the inquiry has been initiated suo moto. In fact the impugned order very clearly states that the direction given in the impugned order is on the basis of the complaint dated 22nd November, 2004 received from certain members of the Society making certain allegations against the latter. 6. Counsel for the Petitioner has also invited our attention to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent, wherein it has been categorically stated that the impugned order was based on the representation-complaint dated 22nd November, 2004 received from certain members of the Petitioner-Society. WP(C) 2583/2005 Page 3 of 3 7. In view of the above, it is apparent that the Registrar has directed an enquiry to be conducted into the Petitioner-Society based on the complaint received from 18 members of the Petitioner-Society and not on a complaint made by not less than one-third members of the Petitioner-Society. It has also not ordered the enquiry to be conducted under the suo moto powers under Section 55 of the Act. 8. Under the provisions of Section 55 of the Act the Registrar can order an enquiry to be conducted only on the application of majority of the committee or of not less than one third of the members of the concerned Society. That is apparently not the case in the present matter. Therefore, there existed no occasion or reason for the Registrar to order the impugned enquiry based on the complaint of a mere 18 members out of the total strength of 1633 members of the said Society. In the consequence, we set aside the order dated 4th January, 2005 and allow the present writ petition. SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J MADAN B. LOKUR, J APRIL 16, 2009 mk