IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Writ Petition (Civil) No. 608/2010 Date of decision: 1st February, 2010 SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr. S.S. Lingwal, Adv. versus GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Vinod Wadhwa, Adv. For R-1, 2 & 4 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?No GITA MITTAL, J(Oral) 1. This writ petition has been filed contending that the petitioner has filed an appeal assailing an award dated 25th March, 2009 passed under section 71 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 against the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the statutory remedy was invoked by way of the appeal before the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal filed on or about the 15th April, 2009 being Appeal No. 128/2009. However, for the reason that the Tribunal is not in place, the application seeking interim relief filed by the petitioner has not been considered. The - 2 - petitioner prays for grant of interim relief by way of the present writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 contends that the respondent no. 1 is at an advance stage of finalization of the constitution of the Tribunal and reasonably expect the same to be in place on or before 31st March, 2010. The record laid before us shows that the petitioner became a member of the respondent no. 3 Cooperative Group Housing Society in the year 1988 on payment of a sum of Rs.110/-. It is an admitted position before us that the petitioner has not paid a single penny towards allotment of any flats which the respondent no. 2 was to construct. The petitioner also admits that construction of the flats has been completed. It, therefore, cannot be contended that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that construction was underway. 2. An oral submission is made that the petitioner was approaching the respondent no. 3 for information with regard to payments, if any, which he is required to make. However, not a single communication has been placed before us as having been ever sent to the respondent no. 3 in this behalf. 3. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner woke up only after the Central Bureau of Investigation started investigation into the management of the respondent no.3 on account of the intervention of this court which was looking into the functioning of cooperative - 3 - societies. The petitioner has placed before us copies of summons dated 9th October, 2006 and 11th October, 2007 received by him under section 160 of the CrPC from the Central Bureau of Investigation. No steps at all were taken by the petitioner even then to assert his legal rights, if any. 4. The petitioner has placed reliance on a response dated 28th February, 2008 received by him from the Delhi Development Authority to the effect that the records of the society are with the Central Bureau of Investigation. Certainly the prayer for interim relief cannot be premised on such a communication. 5. A dispute was raised by the petitioner under section 70 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act which was assigned by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for consideration by an arbitrator. The arbitrator has passed an award dated 25th March, 2009 observing that as per the record made available to him, the petitioner’s name is in the list of members who have resigned on their own. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this finding is without any basis and that the society did not even file a reply before the award. This aspect of the matter as well as production of records, if any, is an aspect which the Appellate Tribunal would be required to go into. In view of the above, having regard to the delay in invoking the - 4 - remedy, if at all by the petitioner, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion to pass any interim relief in the present writ petition in the above facts. This writ petition and application are accordingly dismissed. We make it clear that nothing herein contained shall be considered is an opinion on the merits of the case. The view we have taken is only for the purposes of the interim relief which was pressed before this court on the ground that the petitioner’s interim application was not being heard. Dasti GITA MITTAL,J VIPIN SANGHI, J FEBRUARY 01, 2010 kr