Delhi High Court – Orders
Vineet Bhardwaj vs Registrar Of Cooperative Society & Anr on 23 February, 2026
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13201/2024 & CM APPL. 55130/2024, CM APPL.
58298/2024
VINEET BHARDWAJ .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Rashmi Jain and Mr. Akhil Kumar
Beriwal, Advs.
versus
REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETY & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate for
Respondent No. 1/RCS
Mr. Gagan Kumar, Ms. Puja Jakhar,
Ms. Raghwi Rawat, Advocates for R-
2.
Ms. Puja Jhakar, Adv for the Society.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
ORDER
% 23.02.2026
1. This hearing has been done through virtual mode.
CM APPL. 55130/2024 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.
CM APPL. 58298/2024 (for condonation of delay)
3. The present application has been filed by the Petitioner seeking
condonation of delay of 2 days in re-filing the petition.
4. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing is
condoned.
5. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 13201/2024 Page 1 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/02/2026 at 20:40:00
W.P.(C) 13201/2024
6. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the decision dated 27th
October, 2023 passed by the Respondent No.1 – Registrar of Co-operative
Societies (hereinafter, ‘RCS’).
7. Vide the ‘Minutes of Meeting’ of the Committee constituted under Rule
90 (hereinafter, ‘Rule 90 Committee’) of the Delhi Co-operative Society
Rules, 2007 (hereinafter, ‘DCS rules’) decision dated 27th October, 2023 was
taken, whereby Petitioner’s request for allotment of flat was rejected on the
ground that Rule 19(2) of the DCS rules had been violated by the Respondent
No.2- Gulshan E-Iqbal Co-operative Group Housing Society Limited
(hereinafter, ‘the Society’).
8. After some hearing, it is clear that there is one flat which is vacant in
Society.
9. The objection raised by the RCS was that in the draw of lots, the
representative of the RCS was not present and hence the decision was taken
by the Rule-90 Committee that the Rule 19(2) of the DCS rules stood violated.
10. The Petitioner is stated to have paid the amount of approximately Rs.25
lakhs way back in 2013, for the flat in the Society.
11. Thereafter, an award dated 6th March, 2017 in Arb. Case No.
95/GH/DR/ARB/2013-14 has been passed by the ld. Arbitrator in favour of
the Petitioner, whereby the Petitioner was directed to be given the flat in the
Society. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:
“(i) The then President of Respondent Society had been
taken course of action of filling up one vacacy of societyW.P.(C) 13201/2024 Page 2 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/02/2026 at 20:40:00
left out only after authorised by the Managing
Committee in its meeting on 11.5.2013. The President of
the Respondant Society was present at the time of draw
and shown the resolution declaring him fully authorised
by the Managing Committee in the MC meeting on
11.5.2013 so the draw is legal and legitimate and he was
responsible to manage the representative of the RCS, in
his absence the draw could have not been declared. The
advertisement was cancelled by the RCS communicated
on 26.8.2013 which in violation of Rule 19(2) of DCS
Rules, after the draw, acceptance of money from the
claimant. The act of the President is in gross violation
of the provisions contained in the DCS Act and Rules.
(ii). The Respondant Society neither communicated to
the Claimant in respect of cancellation of his claim to
be a member of the society nor refunded the money
deposited with, the Respondant Society which is against
the provisions of the DCS Act and Rules. Even, the
claimant was not given opportunity of personal hearing
by the society before cancellation of his claim.
(iii) As per provision under clause 12(a) of bye
laws of the Respondent Society, the claimant has paid
the share amount. Subsequently, as per provision
under clause 12 (b) the share certificate issued in
favour of the claimant. The Respondant Society has
failed to give the possession of flat against the
membership allotted/share certificate issued to the
claimant after depositing of all money Rs. 25,68,610/-
as demanded by the Respondent Society.
(iv) The Respondant Society without waiting the
decisions of the RCS in respect of its correspondence
dated. 07.06.2013 had called the GBM on 04.08.2013.
The Respondant Society did not followed the provision
under clause 18 (c) of the Bye-laws and the time was
given. only 10 days for calling GBM while there is
W.P.(C) 13201/2024 Page 3 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/02/2026 at 20:40:00
provision of 14 days clearly in advance as the notice
dated 17 July, 2013 was issued on 26.07.2013 (through
Speed post), which was in violation of this provision.
The RCS vide communication dated 26.08.2013 had
cancelled the advertisement dated 23.05.2013 issued by
the Respondant Society. The RCS is the sole protector of
the DCS Act and Rules has final authority to say in the
functioning of the societies appropriately in accordance
with the provisions of the DCS Act, 2003 and DCS Rules
2007. The then President and the members of the
Managing Committee had acted upon on behalf of the
Respondant Society prevailing the situation of that time.
It is observed from the entire exercise made by them
having lack of knowledge to apply the DCS Act and
Rules, committed mistake to fill up one vacancy without
obtaining the permission of the RCS. However, the
Claimant had complied with the instruction of the
Respondant society in the entire matter. (v) Considering
the facts and circumstances of this matter, the
foundation for calling the applications from the public
through Public Notice/advertisement dated 23.05.2013
has been refused by the RCS. However, the claim of the
claimant can not be ruled out as he has complied the
instructions of the Respondant Society il the matter.
Therefore, the Respondant Society may take appropriate
steps to settle the issue with the claimant in accordance
with the provisions under the DCS Act and Rules.
However, keeping in view of the natural justice to be
extended to the Claimant, the Respondant Society may
take course of action under the DCS Act and Rules, with
the permission of the RCS to regularize the claim of the
claimant.
(vi) Respondent society may take appropriate action
under Section 77 (2) against the then office bearer who
had taken such decision against the violation of the
provisions of DCS Act and Rules.
W.P.(C) 13201/2024 Page 4 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/02/2026 at 20:40:00
(vii) The parties may bear their own cost.”
12. Subsequently, the award dated 6th March, 2017 was challenged before
the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal (hereinafter, ‘DCT’) by the Society. Vide
order dated 6th July, 2018 the DCT directed for regularization and for handing
over of the possession of the flat. The relevant portion of the order dated 6th
July, 2018 reads as under:
“24. In our considered view, it is a fit case for
invocation of provisions of Section 39 of the DCS Act
which has been rightly done by ld. Arbitrator who
after making other observations has directed the
appellant society to take, appropriate steps to settle
the issue with the claimant in accordance with the
provisions of /DCS Act’& Rules, in order to
regularise the claim of RI (claimant) and for handing
over the possession of the flat. Ld. Arbitrator has also
directed the appellant society to take appropriate
action u/s 77(2) against the then office bearers of the
appellant society.
25. There is no illegality, infirmity or impropriety
in the impugned award. Therefore, the impugned
award does not warrant any interference. The appeal
is therefore, dismissed.”
13. However, the grievance of the Petitioner is that the flat has still not been
given, on the ground that the draw of lots was contrary to Rule 19(2) of the
DCS rules.
14. The ld. Counsels for all the parties pray for physical hearing of this
matter. However, the same is not possible in view of the Bar Council of Delhi
Elections today.
W.P.(C) 13201/2024 Page 5 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/02/2026 at 20:40:00
15. Accordingly, list this matter on 19th March, 2026 in the
‘Supplementary List’.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
MADHU JAIN, J.
FEBRUARY 23, 2026
Rahul/sm
W.P.(C) 13201/2024 Page 6 of 6
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/02/2026 at 20:40:00
