HINDUSTAN COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. versus REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ANR.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 331 · Decided: 12-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
) 
I 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 331 
HINDUSTAN COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 
v. 
REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ANR. 
Civil Appeal No. 957 of 2009 
FEBRUARY 12, 2009 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGl)LY, 
JJ.) 
belhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973 : 
A 
B 
r. 25(2) - Disqualification of membership of a Co- c 
operative Housing Society - Writ petition before High Court -
Held: Matter remitted to High Court as it has neither considered 
the effect of sub-rule (2) of r 25 nor that normally when· an 
alternative remedy is available, the same should be availed 
- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ Petition -
D 
Maintainability of, when alternative remedy is available. 
The father of respondent No.2 was a member of the 
appellant-Group Housing Society. On 5.9.1962 he wrote 
to the appellant-Society to refund his membership amount 
as also the amount which he had deposited towards the E 
cost of the plot, as he had already purchased another plot 
in the city. However, on 5.9.1972 he filed an application 
for transfer of his membership in favour of his daughter, 
respondent No.2. After some correspondence between 
the father of respondent No.2 for-transfer and the appellant F 
Society declining to effect the transfer, the former 
tendered his resignation. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed 
a writ petition before the High Court, which held that the 
appellant Society having accepted the transfer, 
respondent No.2 was entitled to allotment of plot and G 
directed respondent No.1-Registrar, Co-operative 
Societies to allot her the plot. 
In the appeal filed by the Co-operative Housing 
331 
H 
332 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Society, it was contended for the appellant that the High 
Court lost sight of r.25 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies 
Rules, 1973, and respondent No.2, without availing the 
statutory remedies available under the Delhi Co-operative 
Societies Act, 1972 and the Rules, could not file the writ 
B petition. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the 
High Court, the Court 
HELD: 1. For the purpose of the instant case Sub-
C rule (2) of Rule 25 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies 
Rules, 1973 is of paramount importance. There is a 
deemed disqualification. The effect of it has not been 
examined by the High Court. (Para - 8) [ 339-C] 
State of Travancore Cochin· v. Shanmugha Vilas 
D 
Cashewnut Factory AIR (1953) SC 333; American Home 
Products Corpn. v. Mac Laboratories (P) Ltd. 1986 (1) SCC 
465 and Parayankandiya/ Eravath Kanapravan Kalliani Amma 
v. K. Devi (1996) 4 SCC 76 - referred to. 
Levy, Re, exp Walton by James 1881 (17) L.J. Ch.D 
E 
746; Hill v. East and West India Dock Co. 1884 (9) AC 448; 
East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council 1951 
(2) All ER 587 (HL); St. Aubyn (L.M.) v. Attorney-General (No. 
2) 1951 (2) All ER 473, All ER p.498 F-G by Lord Radcliffe; 
Hunter Douglas Australia Pty. v. Perma Blinds 1970 (44) Aust 
F 
LJ 257 by Windener, J.; R. v. Norfolk County Court 1891 (60) 
LJ QB 379 by Cave, J. ; Ferguson vs. McMillan 1954 SL T 
109; St. Leon Village Consolidated School Distt. v. Ronceray 
1960 ·(23) DLR (2d) 32; Barclays Bank v. /RC by Viscount 
Simonds 1961 AC 509 (HL); R v. Brixton Prison (Governor), 
G exp Sob/en 1962 (3) All ER 641, .. All ER p.669 C - referred to. 
H 
2. Normally when a statutory remedy is available, the 
same should be availed. In the instant case~ that aspect 
has not been examined by the High Court. The writ petition 
needs to be decided by the High Court afresh keeping in 
I 
~ 
HINDUSTAN CO,. HOUSING SOCIETY V. 
333 
REGR., CO-OP. SOCIETIES AND ANR. 
.... 
'"' 
.,,. 
view the applicable legal provision. Counter and rejoinder A 
affidavits would be filed as indicated in the judgment. The 
High Court would explore the possibility of disposing of 
the writ petition expeditiously. Till then, no third party 
rights in respect of the plot which is stated to have been 
allotted to respondent No.2 shall be created by the 8 
appellant. (Para 15) [341-G, H; 342-A, B] 
Case Law Reference 
J 
1881 (17) LJ. Ch.D 746 referred to 
para 9 
1884 (9) AC 448 
referred to 
para 9 
c 
j 
AIR (1953) SC 333 
referred to 
para 9 
1986 (1) sec 465 
referred to 
para 9 
al 
(1996) 4 sec 76 
referred to 
para 9 
D 
~ 
1951 (2) All ER 587 (HL) referred to 
para 9 
1951 (2) All ER 473 
referred to 
para 10 
1970 (44) Aust LJ 257 referred to 
para 11 
E 
~ 
1891 (60) LJ QB 379 
referred to 
para 12 
1954 SLT 109 
referred

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.