Case: Jagdish Singh Vs. Lt. Governor Delhi

2. Admittedly, the appellant became a member of DronacharayaGroup Housing Society on 9th August, 1980. The said Society was allotted land within the Union Territory of Delhi by Delhi Administration for construction of flats for allotment to its members. The appellant being a member of the Society desirous of purchasing a flat on being directed by the Society deposited initially a sum of Rs. 8,000 and thereafter different sums of money on different dates, in all Rs. 3,35,015 by 20th of June, 1991. While he was a member of DronacharayaGroup Housing Society, he also got himself enrolled as a member of another Society called TribalHousing Society Ltd. on 29th November, 1983, but later on he resigned from the said TribalHousing Society Ltd. on 7.6.1991. The Registrar,Societies issued a notice to the appellant on 22nd October, 1992 in exercise of his powers under(4) of Rule 25 of the DelhiSocieties Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Rules) stating therein that the appellant could be enrolled as a member of the TribalHousing Society Ltd. by filing a false affidavit and declaring that neither he not his wife nor any of his dependant relations has been a member of any other House BuildingSocieties and thus has incurred the disqualification under Rule 25(1)(c)(iii) of the Rules and consequently ceases to be a member of the Society under(2) of Rule 25. The Registrar called upon the appellant to reply to thenotice within 15 days from the date of issue of the notice. The appellant in his reply indicated that he was not aware of the relevant provisions of the Rules prohibiting a member of one Society to become a member of anotherSociety. At any rate he has tendered his resignation from the TribalHousing Society Ltd. since June, 1991 much prior to the issuance of the notice of showcause, and therefore, the alleged disqualification under Rule 25(1)(c)(iii) was no longer subsisting. The Registrar of theSocieties, however, by his order dated February 23, 1993 came to the conclusion that the appellant has incurred the disqualification for membership under Rule 25(1)(c)(iii) of the Rules as he got himself enrolled as a member of the TribalHousing Society Ltd. while continuing as a member of the DronacharayaGroup Housing Society, and therefore, his membership of both the Societies ceases. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant preferred a Revision to the Lt. Governor of Delhi and the said Revision having been dismissed by order dated 25th August, 1993, the appellant preferred a writ petition in Delhi High Court. The High Court by judgment dated 20th March, 1996 agreed with the conclusion of the Registrar and came to hold that by virtue of Rule 25(2) the appellant automatically became disqualified for the membership of both the Societies and as such there is no error with the orders passed by the Registrar ofSocieties and affirmed by the Lt. Governor, hence the present appeal.

Court's reasoning:
7. Apart from the aforesaid harmonious construction of(2) of Rule 25 and Rule 28, on a plain construction of Rule 25 also the same conclusion has to be arrived at.(1) disqualifies a person for admission as a member of a Housing Society if he or his spouse or any of his dependent children is a member of any other Housing Society. The disqualification in question obviously attaches to membership of the second Society and has no connection with his membership of the first Society. In view of the aforesaid embargo contained in(1) of Rule 25,(2) by its operation bring in the fiction of deemed cessation from the membership of such Society from the date when the disqualification was incurred and such fiction of deemed cessation has nothing to do with the membership of the first Society. This being the position,(2) of Rule 25 when read with(1) of the said Rule is not susceptible of a construction that the person concerned ceased to be a member of both the Societies. In view of our aforesaid construction of(2) of Rule 25, .the conclusion is irresistible that the Registrar while passing the impugned order dated 23rd February, 1993 and Lt. Governor while dismissing the appellants Revision by his order dated 25th August, 1993 as well as the High Court in the impugned judgment dated 20th March, 1996 committed gross error in holding that the appellant ceases to be a member of both the Societies under(2) of Rule 25. The aforesaid orders, therefore, are wholly unsustainable and cannot be sustained.