Sant Lal Gupta & Ors vs Modern Coop. G.H. Society Ltd. & Ors

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants had been the members of the Modern Co-op. Group Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter called the `Society') and claimed to have paid all their subscriptions of membership and other dues on the demands made by the Society. The Society had proposed the expulsion of 27 members including the appellants, by its Resolution dated 27.4.1987 and the said proposal was sent to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies (hereinafter called the Registrar) as required under the provisions of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 (hereinafter called as `Act 1972'), for approval on 20.2.1988 and meanwhile it enrolled new members, whose approval was also sought.

In spite of all efforts made by the Registrar, the Society did not submit the record before him prior to 19.9.1995. The Registrar vide order dated 2.2.1996 issued notice to the Society for consideration of the said resolution and vide order dated 4.6.1996 rejected the approval.

3. Being aggrieved, the Society approached the Financial Commissioner by filing a revision under Section 80 of the Act 1972 2 which was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 30.7.1996.

Being aggrieved, the Society filed Writ Petition No.3325/1996 before the Delhi High Court and after hearing the same, the matter was remanded to the Registrar for reconsideration. In pursuance of the order of the Delhi High Court, the Registrar considered the matter afresh and passed an order dated 26.8.1997 rejecting the approval of the expulsion of the appellants and other members. Being aggrieved, the Society preferred a revision before the Financial Commissioner which was also dismissed vide order dated 3.11.1997.

9. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the legislature desired that every such resolution sent to the Registrar by the Society be considered and decided within a period of 6 months and that the resolution shall be effective from the date of approval. If approval is required, the order which is required to be approved by the statutory authority cannot become effective unless the approval is accorded.

17. In view of the above, it was neither desirable nor permissible by the Co-ordinate Bench to disapprove the earlier judgment and take 8 view contrary to it. More so, extension of the period from 6 months to 1 year amounts to legislation.

Recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected.

An error apparent on the face of the record means an error which strikes one on mere looking and does not need long drawn out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions.

Such error should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. Such errors may include the giving of reasons that are bad in law or inconsistent, unintelligible or inadequate. It may also 16 include the application of a wrong legal test to the facts found, taking irrelevant considerations into account and failing to take relevant considerations into account, and wrongful admission or exclusion of evidence, as well as arriving at a conclusion without any supporting evidence. Such a writ can be issued when there is an error in jurisdiction or authority whose order is to be reviewed has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of its jurisdiction or has failed to act.

While issuing the Writ of Certiorari, the order under challenge should not undergo scrutiny of an appellate court. It is obligatory on the part of the petitioner to show that a jurisdictional error has been committed by the Statutory Authorities. There must be the breach of principles of natural justice for resorting to such a course. (Vide: Harbans Lal v.

Union of India, (2008) 2 SCC 417; and Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited, (2008) 14 SCC 171) In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that facts of the case did not warrant any interference by the High Court in its equity jurisdiction for raising the writ of certiorari.

30. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which the impugned judgment has been passed, appeal deserves to be allowed.

32. In view of the above, appeal is allowed. Judgment and order of the High Court dated 4.9.2002 in Civil Writ Petition No. 2/98 is hereby set aside and the judgment and order of the statutory 18 authorities dated 26.8.1997 and 3.11.1997 are restored. There shall be no order as to costs.