Singh Vs. The Chairman, Noida & Ors  INSC 77 (19 January 1995)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Venkatachala N. (J)
1995 SCC (2) 420 JT 1995 (2) 55 1995 SCALE (1)416
Admittedly, the petitioner was found to be one of the eligible persons entitled
to be registered as a member of the Coop. Societies for allotment of the plots
also deposited the price within time on diverse dates as directed by the
Society itself The NOIDA refused allotment of the plot to the petitioner on the
sole ground that 1.5.76 was the cut off date and who so ever was a member of
the society prior to it would be entitled for the allotment. As the petitioner
was enrolled as a member on 8.5.76, he is not eligible for allotment of the
plot. It is seen from the record that the Society had bungled in the matter of
enrollment of members. In consequence the petitioner was constrained to invoke
arbitration proceedings before the competent authority The Register in his
award dated 9.11.83 recorded a clear finding that the petitioner had compiled
with what all the rules requires him to do and the Society had committed
bungling in not forwarding the name of the petitioner within the time.
Consequently, a direction was given to forward the name of the petitioner for
the enrollment as a member. The award became final and the Society was bound by
it. Since it came to be received after the due date, the registration has been
made after 7 days from the cut off date put by this Court in NOIDA v. U.P.
Residents Emp. Coop. Hsg. Bldg. Society, 1990 (supp.) SCC 175. The petitioner
was in no way responsible for delay in admission beyond the cut off date. In
view of the fact that the petitioner himself has been agitating for his right
to membership and for allotment of plot and having already deposited the
amount, we think that he cannot be penallsed for misfeasance of the Society.
Under the circumstances, the writ petition has to be allowed. It is accordingly
allowed under the said special circumstances but not on any other ground and it
cannot be used as a precedent to overcome the cut off date fixed by this Court.
is brought to our notice that the respondents have refunded the entire amount
deposited by the petitioner and he had kept the amount in a separate account
earning interest thereon. The petitioner is directed to withdraw the amount
from the account with notice to the respondent and it is open to the respondent
to verify this fact. After withdrawal of the amount, the petitioner should
immediately deposit the entire amount to funded by the respondent together with
interest earned thereon, with the respondent.