LexH.C. SUMAN AND ANR. versus REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD., NEW DELHI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
I H.C. SUMAN AND ANR. v. REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD., NEW DELHI. & ORS. AUGUS1 29, 1991 [S. RANGANATHAN, 'M. FATHIMA BEEVI AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.) A B Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972--Sections 12, 76 and 88--- Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Applicability of bye-law-Validity of-Notification dated C 27. IO. 1987 issued by Lt. Governor. Respondent No. 1 ·is a Cooperative House Building Society registered under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972. It was formed in October 1959, with a view to procure land, which the Central Government proposed to allot for the resettlement of displaced persons. The D members of the Society fall in three categories viz., (i) employees of the .Ministry of Rehabilitation; New Delhi (ii) employees of the Ministries in Delhi/New Delhi which were under the charge of the Minister/Minister of State of Rehabilitation Ministry and (iii) employees working in the subordinate offices of the Ministry /Department of Rehabilitation who were posted outside Delhi/New Delhi and wanted to settle in Delhi aller E their superannuation. It may he mentioned that the members in the third category were enrolled as members pursuant •to the amended bye-law S(l)(a) (iii), at the Society's Managing Committee's meeting held on 17.11.1979; Ai the said meeting.the cases of 15 other members were also regularised, as the affidavits furnished by them earlier were on scrutiny found· defective, which they had replaced by filing fresh F affidavits. The Society proceeded to make allotment of land to its members and draw of lots was held on 14.12.1988. The draw of.lots was chal- lenged by the appellants before the Delhi High Court on the ground that they are senior to 15 persons aforementioned and others. The appellants . G · also challenged the validity of the Notification dated 27th October 1987 insofar as it made the amended bye-law 5(l)(a)(iii) effective retrospec- tively. ;t'he High Court having dismissed the petition, the appellants have filed this appeal after obtaining special leave, and the question involved for determination in the appeal inter alia relates to the senio- rity of the members of the society which constitutes the basis for allot- H 839 A 840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 3 S.C.R. ment of plots at the time of drawing of lots. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, HELD: The notification dated 27th October, 1987, indicates that by its earlier part the Lt. Governor has exempted the society from th~ B ·provision of 1'ection 12 of the Act. This was clearly permissible on a plain reading of Section 88. By its later part the notification provides that the amended bye-law 5(1)(a)(iii) "will have retrospective effect with effect from 10.1.1968." The word "which" seems to have been omitted after "as registered on 10.3.86" and before "will have retrospective effect". It is clear not only from the context of the notifi- c D E cation but also from its Hindi version. [849E-F] What weighed with the Lt. Governor in passing the order dated 10.8.1985 was that persons for whose benefit the bye-law was sought to be amended had become members of the society many years ago, that their names figured even in the list of members which was supplied by the Society to the Department of Rehabilitation and which formed the basis for allotment of land to the society and that it would be· neither fair.nor just to leave them in the lurch now by deprMng them of their membership when they cannot become members of any other society. It was pointed out by the Lt. Governor that the propllsed amendment in the bye-law was "designed to regularise such of the members." [855E-F] The notification dated 29.8.1990 purports to rescind the earlier notification dated 27th October 1987 only and does not speak in clear terms !hat the quasi-judicial order dated 19.8.1985 was also being res- . cinded. On the facts and circumstances this hardly makes any diffe- F rence inasmuch as even though the quasi-judicial order dated 19th August 1985 has not been expressly nullified, it has certainly for all practical purposes been nullified by necessary implication. This could not be done and the notification dated 29th August 1990 is ultra vi res on this ground alone. [8578-C] G A quasi-judicial order once passed and having become final can- not be reviewed by the authority passing that order unles
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.