RITU SAHU JAIN Vs. ASHOK SARDANA AND OTHERS
LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-96
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on September 14,2016

Ritu Sahu Jain Appellant
VERSUS
Ashok Sardana And Others Respondents




JUDGEMENT

SANJIV KHANNA,J. - (1.)Ritu Sahu Jain, the petitioner in this writ petition, impugns the order dated 12th April, 2005 passed by the Financial Commissioner holding that she was disqualified from being a member of the Nav Sansad Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited (Cooperative Society, for short) under Rule 25 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 (Rules, for short) as she was the owner of 1000 square metres of land in the extended village abadi in the village Kapashera, New Delhi.
(2.)The contentions raised by the petitioner are as under:-
(i) Rule 25 being a disabling provision should be strictly interpreted. Rule 25(1)(C)(i) of the Rules was not violated as the petitioner did not own any residential house or plot of land for construction of a residential house.

(ii) The Financial Commissioner erroneously reversed the finding of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies that 1000 square metres of land in the extended abadi area of village Kapashera was non-residential land. The Financial Commissioner ignored and did not appreciate the fact that a godown had been constructed on the land and was rented out for commercial purposes in the year 1995-96 to M/s Emery Worldwide, Singapore.

(iii) The Financial Commissioner, in reversing the factual findings of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, had exceeded the revisional power conferred under Sec. 80 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 (Act, for short). The distinction between the revisional and appellate power is striking but has been overlooked.

(iv) The Lieutenant Governor and not the Financial Commissioner could have exercised revisional power under Sec. 80 of the Act. The Lieutenant Governor can suo motu, or on an application by a party, call for and examine the records of the proceedings before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Ergo, the order of the Financial Commissioner under Sec. 80 of the Act is void ab initio for lack of authority.

(3.)The present writ petition was allowed by the judgment dated 8th Feb., 2011, recording that the Financial Commissioner had failed to discuss, much less decide, the foremost contention relating to his authority. The revisional power under Sec. 80 of the Act which stands vested in the Lieutenant Governor of the Union Territory of Delhi was erroneously exercised by the Financial Commissioner. The power and jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner as an appellate authority was restricted to Sec. 76 of the Act. Therefore, the revision petition preferred before the Financial Commissioner by Ashok Sardana, the respondent No. 1 herein, was not maintainable.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.