JAGDISH SINGH versus LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 953 · Decided: 11-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

JAGDISH SINGH 
A 
v. 
LT. GOVERNOR, DELHI AND ORS. 
MARCH 11, 1997 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Delhi Co-operativ~ Societies Rules, 1971: Rules· 24, 25(1)(c)(iii) & (2) 
and 28. 
· 
Co-operr.tive Societies-Membership of-Member of one housing 'C 
society got himself enrolled as member of another housing society in con-
travention of R.25 (l)(c)(iiirRegistrar issued show-cause notice to such 
member under R.25 (2 rSubsequently, Registrar ordered cessatiOn of mem-
bership of such member from both the ~ocieties-H eld : Deemed cessation of 
membership of such member would be only in respect of the subsequent. 
society and not in respect of the earlier society-:-H ann01zious construction of D 
Rr. 24, 25 and 28 given-Plain constmction of R.25 also led to same c_on-
clusion-Registrar's order wholly unsustainablC"'-'17ze said order could not lie 
treated as one under R.28--Interpretation of Statutes. 
Rule 28--Co-operative societies-Removal of member from either or E 
both of the co-operative societies-Discretion of Registrar-Mode of exercise 
of-Held: Registrar must take a conscious decision after examining the cir-
cumstances '"'"er which the person concenzed 'had become member of two 
societies-I, 
~retion has to be exercised judiciously at1d not arbitrari-
. 
. 
-
; 
. 
.,,, . 
·' 
. 
' 
ly-Administrative Law. 
The appellant was a member of a Co-operative1 (;roup Housing 
F 
· Society. While he was a member of I.his society, he also gofhimself enrolled 
as a member of another Co-oper!ttive Housing Society iJ':c!intravention of 
Rule 25(1)Cc)(iii)' of the Delhi Co-operative Societies 1Rtiles, 1973. The 
Registrar, Co-operative Societies issued a show-cause notice to the appel-
hint under Rule 25(4). After obtaining the appellant's 'i'eply to the said G 
show- cause notice, the Registrar came to the conclusion that the appellant 
had incurred the disqualification for membership under Rule 25(1)(c)(iii) 
I 
and hence the appellant's membership of both the societies had ceased 
under Rule 25(2). The appell\lnt's Revision before the Lt. 'Governor was 
dlsmissetl.. The r ~-1 Court dismissed the writ petition lilea by the appel- H 
953 
954 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 2 S.C.R. y 
A lant. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that under Rule 25(2), 
when a member of one housing society incurred the disqualification under 
Rule 25(1)(c)(iii) then from the date of such disqualification he would 
deem to have ceased from the membership of the subsequent society and 
B he did not cease to be a member of both the societies namely the earlier 
and the later; and that a contrary interpretation of Rule 25(2) would 
render Rule 28 inoperative and, therefore, efforts should be made for a 
harmonious construction whereunder both the provisions could operate. 
C 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that since under Rule 
28 the Registrar was empowered to direct cessation of membership from 
either or both the socieFes, the impugned order passed could be held to 
be one in exercise of the said power under Rule 28. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
D 
HELD: 1.1. It is a cardinal principle of construction of a statute or the 
statutory rule that efforts should be made in construing the different 
provisions, so that, each provision will have its play and in the event of any 
conflict a harmonious construction should be given. Further a statute or a 
rule made thereunder should be read as a whole and one provision should 
E be construed with reference to the other provision so as to make the rule 
consistent and any construction which would bring any inconsistency or 
repugnancy between one provision and the other should be avoided. One 
rule cannot be used to defeat another rule in the same rules unless it is 
impossible to effect harmonisation between them. Rules 25(2) and 28 of the 
p 
Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973, if so construed, the obvious 
answer would be that the deemed cessation from membership of the person 
concerned is in relation to the society pertaining to which disqualification is 
incurred. A plain reading of Rule 28 makes it crystal clear that the Registrar 
when becomes aware of the fact that an individual has become a member of 
two co-operative societies of the same class which obviously is a dis-
G qnalification under rule 25 then he has the discretion to direct removal of 
the said individual from the membership of either or both the co- operative 
societi

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