SANT LAL GUPTA & ORS. versus MODERN COOP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 621 · Decided: 18-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 621 
SANT LAL GUPTA & ORS. 
V. 
MODERN COOP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & 
ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9439 of 2003) 
OCTOBER 18, 2010 · 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973- r. 36(3) - Co-
operative Housing Society passing resolution proposing C 
expulsion of its members - The proposal sent for approval 
to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies - Records submitted 
by Society before Registrar after seven years - Thereafter 
proposal rejected by the Registrar- In the first round of 
litigation, High Court remanding the matter to the Registrar 0 
for reconsideration - In the second round of litigation, High 
Court in a writ petition holding that the proposal would be 
deemed to be approved as the same was not decided within 
a period of 6 months as required u/r. 36(3) - On appeal, held: 
The resolution passed by the Society cannot be given effect E 
to, unless approval is accorded by the Registrar as 
mandatorily required under the Act and the Rules - High 
Court has wrongly gone into the question of delay on the part 
of the Registrar in deciding the approval of the resolution of 
the Society, leaving aside the core issue -
On facts, no F 
interference was warranted by High Court in its equity 
jurisdiction for issuing the writ of Certiorari - Delhi Co-
operative Societies Act, 1972. 
Interpretation of Statutes - Legal fiction - Interpretation 
of - Held: Interpretation of the legal fiction must be limited to G 
the purpose indicated_ by the context and it cannot be given 
a larger effect - what can be deemed to exist under a legal 
fiction are only facts and no legal consequences not flowing 
from the law as it stands - In absence of a statutory provision, 
621 
H 
622 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
the provision cannot be construed as to provide for a fiction 
- Creation of fiction by judicial interpretation would amount 
to legislation. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Writ of Certiorari 
8 
- Scope of - Held: Writ of Certiorari under Article 226 can be 
issued only when there is failure of justice and there is error 
apparent on the face of the record or there is error in · 
jurisdiction or authority or there is breach of principle of 
natural justice -
While issuing such writ, order under 
C 
challenge not to undergo scrutiny of as an appellate court. 
Judgment - Recording of reasons in - Requirement of 
- Held: While deciding an issue, the court is bound to give 
reason.s for its conclusion - Recording of reasons is principle 
of natural justice - It ensures transparency and fairness in 
D decision making - It is one of the fundamentals of such 
administration of justice-delivery system - Principles of 
natural justice - Administration of Justice. 
Precedent - Co-ordinate Bench of High Court, after 
E 
considering the judgment passed by another co-ordinate 
Bench of the High Court, taking contrary view - Propriety of 
-
Held: A co-ordinate Bench cannot comment upon 
discretion exercised or judgment rendered by another co-
ordinate Bench of the same court - The rule of precedent is 
F 
G 
binding on the court - In judicial administration, precedents 
which enunciate rules of law form foundation of administration 
of Justice - Judicial Propriety - Administration of Justice. 
Maxim - 'quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibeus et omne 
per quad devenitur ad illud' - Applicability of 
Words and Phrases: 
'Approval' - Meaning of 
Expression 'An error apparent on the face of the record' 
H 
- Meaning of 
SANT LAL GUPTA v. MODERN COOP. GROUP 
623 
HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 
The appellants were the members of the respondent-
A 
Society (A co-operative Group Housing Society). The 
Society proposed ex·pulsion of some of its members, 
including the appellants. The proposal was sent to the 
Registrar of the Co-operative Societies for approval. The 
Society submitted its records before the Registrar after 
B 
about 7 years. Thereafter, the Registrar passed its order, . 
rejecting the proposal. The Society filed revision before 
the Financial Commissioner, which was dismissed. The 
Society, then filed a writ petition. The High Court 
remanded the case to the Registrar for reconsideration. c 
The Registrar, after reconsidering the matter, again 
rejected the proposal. Revision against the order was 
also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner. The 
Society filed another writ petition. The High Court allowed 
the petition, setting as

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