# C/m Grih Laxmi Sakhari Awas Samiti Ltd. & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 791
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-22
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 24279 of 2024
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra, Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-grih-laxmi-sakhari-awas-samiti-ltd-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52438
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Cooperative
Societies Act, 1965 - Sections 31, 38(1),
38(2), 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71 - Removal of
an officer of a co-operative society -
Secretary and Chairman of the Society -
Validity - Allegation of allotting flat
without taking money from allottee -
Proceeding initiated by respondent no. 2
is wholly without jurisdiction and arbitrary
- No records of deposits being made by
allottee in respect of flat allotted to her,
there is no any evidence regarding cost of
flat being deposited in account of Society
- Legitimate notices were issued to
allottee in respect of which a dispute had
been raised by allottee which was later on
referred to arbitration under Section 70 of
Act, 1965, an Arbitrator was appointed
and before whom arbitration proceedings
are in progress - Under the circumstances,
the proceedings initiated by respondent
no. 2 u/s 38(1) of Act, 1965 on complaint
made by allottee in respect of same
dispute
that
has
been
referred
to
arbitration,
is
without
jurisdiction,
arbitrary and illegal - There is no material
before the respondent to resort to drastic
steps under aforesaid section - Impugned
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
orders dated 30.5.2024 and 4.7.2024
quashed. (Para 4, 6)

Writ petition is allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–38,982 of 95,377. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=38982 for what follows._

8 All. C/m Grih Laxmi Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
791
being constructed on the said land
does not have any basis.
6.
For
the
foregoing
reasons, the impugned order dated
22.1.2002, besides being without
jurisdiction, is also not tenable in
law on merits and is thus liable to
be quashed. Accordingly, this writ
petition stands allowed and the
order dated 22.1.2002 passed by
respondent no.2, the Additional
Commissioner
(Administration),
Meerut
Division,
Meerut
is
quashed. There shall be no order
as to costs."

12.

The
ground
taken
for
cancellation in the impugned order is that
petitioner Roopram has transferred the
allotted plot in favour of one Manipal
without executing sale deed but petitioner
has taken specific stand in paragraph No.
12 of the writ petition that petitioner has
never sold the property in dispute and
petitioner is continuing in possession of the
plot in dispute. No counter affidavit has
been filed by State for the last 21 years, as
such, there is no option except to decide the
writ petition on merit. The ground taken for
cancellation in the impugned order cannot
be sustained on merit.

13. Considering the entire facts
and circumstances of the case as well as the
ratio of law laid down by this Court in
Dinesh Kumar (Supra), the impugned
orders dated 4.4.2023 and 13.10.1995
passed by respondent no.2 are liable to be
set aside and the same are hereby set aside.
Writ petition stands allowed and the lease
executed in favour of the petitioner in the
year 1976 is hereby affirmed.

14. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 791
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ-C No. 24279 of 2024

C/m Grih Laxmi Sakhari Awas Samiti Ltd.
& Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Lavlesh Kumar Shukla, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ayank Mishra, C.S.C., Nipun Singh

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Cooperative
Societies Act, 1965 - Sections 31, 38(1),
38(2), 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71 - Removal of
an officer of a co-operative society -
Secretary and Chairman of the Society -
Validity - Allegation of allotting flat
without taking money from allottee -
Proceeding initiated by respondent no. 2
is wholly without jurisdiction and arbitrary
- No records of deposits being made by
allottee in respect of flat allotted to her,
there is no any evidence regarding cost of
flat being deposited in account of Society
- Legitimate notices were issued to
allottee in respect of which a dispute had
been raised by allottee which was later on
referred to arbitration under Section 70 of
Act, 1965, an Arbitrator was appointed
and before whom arbitration proceedings
are in progress - Under the circumstances,
the proceedings initiated by respondent
no. 2 u/s 38(1) of Act, 1965 on complaint
made by allottee in respect of same
dispute
that
has
been
referred
to
arbitration,
is
without
jurisdiction,
arbitrary and illegal - There is no material
before the respondent to resort to drastic
steps under aforesaid section - Impugned
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
orders dated 30.5.2024 and 4.7.2024
quashed. (Para 4, 6)

Writ petition is allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. C/M The Meerut Sahkari Avas Samiti & 2 Ors.
Vs St. of U.P. & 4 Ors, 2024 (1) ADJ 371

2. Smt. Vandana Varma & ors.Vs St. of U.P. &
Ors, 2019 (9) ADJ 125 (FB)

3.
Narayan
Govind
Gavate
Vs
St.
of
Maharashtra, (1977) 1 SCC 133

4. Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vs Union of India,
(1981) 1 SCC 664

5. Maya Devi Vs Raj Kumari Batra, (2010) 9 SCC
486

6. Union of India Vs Raj Grow Impex LLP, (2021)
18 SCC 601

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. When the matter was last listed
on 6.8.2024, the following order was
passed :-

"Heard learned counsel for
the petitioners and Sri Ravi Anand
Agarwal learned counsel appearing
for the respondent No.2 & 3 who
has
produced
another
file
containing original records.
With the consent of the
parties this matter was heard for
final disposal.
No counter affidavit has
been called because the same does
not appear to be required as the
original record has already been
produced and is available and the
dispute
is
primarily
one
of
jurisdiction of the respondent No.2
to pass the impugned orders.
List on 22.08.2024 for
delivery of judgment.
Till
that
date,
further
proceedings consequent to the
impugned orders, shall remain
stayed.
The
files
containing
original records shall be returned
back
after
the
delivery
of
judgment."

2. This writ petition has been filed
seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a suitable writ,
order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing the impugned
orders
dated
30.05.2024
and
04.07.2024
passed
by
the
Additional
Housing
Commissioner/Additional
Registrar, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad,
Lucknow
(Annexure
Nos.4 and 7 to the writ petition).
(ii) Issue a suitable writ,
order or direction in the nature of
mandamus
commanding
the
respondents not to give effect to the
impugned orders referred to above
and stay all further proceedings
consequent thereupon during the
pendency of the writ petition.
(iii) Issue a suitable writ,
order or direction in the nature of
mandamus
commanding
the
respondents not to interfere in the
peaceful
functioning
of
the
petitioners
as
Committee
of
Management
of
Grih
Laxmi
Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd., District
Gautam Buddh Nagar and its office
bearers as President and Secretary
respectively.
(iv) Issue any other writ,
order or direction which this
8 All. C/m Grih Laxmi Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
793
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper
in
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case.
(v) Award the cost of the
writ petition."

3. By the impugned order dated
30.5.2024,
the
respondent
no.2,
the
Additional
Registrar
of
Cooperative
Societies, in exercise of power under
Section 38(1) of the Uttar Pradesh
Cooperative Societies Act, 19651, directed
the
petitioner
no.1-
Committee
of
Management of Grih Laxmi Sahkari Awas
Samiti Limited, Gautam Budh Nagar to
remove the Secretary and Chairman of the
Society2 within one month from the posts
occupied by them under intimation to the
office.

By the other impugned order dated
4.7.2024, exercising power under Section
38(2) of the Act, 1965, the respondent no.2
has directed the petitioner no.2-Chairman
and the petitioner no.3-Secretary of the
Society to appear before him for purpose of
affording them opportunity of hearing prior
to
their
removal
or
removal
and
disqualification.

4. Briefly stated case of the
petitioners is that the Society is registered
under the Act, 1965 having its registered
by-laws. The election of the Committee of
Management of the Society was held in the
month of February 2023, in which the
petitioner no.2 was elected as Chairman
and petitioner no.3 was appointed by the
elected Committee of Management as
Secretary of the Society under Section 31
of the Act, 1965. The respondent no.4, Smt.
Kunta Devi, is stated to be a member of the
Society and there is a dispute in respect of
the Flat No. H-207 allotted/registered in the
name of Smt. Kunta Devi, as a complaint
had been received that the said flat was
registered in her favour by the former
Secretary of the Society, namely Smt.
Sushila Saraswat, even without payment
being made by Smt. Kunta Devi and
without the same being deposited in the
account of the Society. It is stated that even
after the election in February 2023, the
former Secretary, Smt. Sushila Saraswat,
has not handed over papers of the Society.
It is stated that the daughter of Smt. Sushila
Saraswat is married to the son of
respondent No.4, Smt. Kunta Devi.

Notice
was
issued
by
the
petitioners requiring Smt. Kunta Devi to
submit necessary evidence to show that
actual payment for the flat was made by her
and that the same was deposited in the
account of the Society. For purpose of
getting necessary information regarding
deposit, a notice dated 4.5.2024 was also
issued by the officiating Secretary to the
aforesaid former Secretary, Smt. Sushila
Saraswat. Under the circumstances, Smt.
Kunta Devi applied to the Registrar,
Housing Society for appointment of an
Arbitrator under Section 70 of the Act,
1965 and by an order dated 27.5.2024, an
Additional
Commissioner/Registrar,
Cooperative
Housing
Society
was
appointed as Arbitrator in that case. It is
stated that the petitioners have appeared
before the Arbitrator and they have been
supplied necessary papers for submitting
reply and next date was fixed by the
Arbitrator.

5. In the meantime, respondent
no.4, Smt. Kunta Devi, made a complaint
before the respondent no.2 on which an
inquiry was ordered by respondent no.2 and
some inquiry report behind the back of the
petitioners was submitted. It is stated that
acting thereon, the impugned order dated
794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
30.5.2024 was passed by respondent no.2
in arbitrary exercise of powers under
Section 38(1) of the Act, 1965, which is
without jurisdiction.

Thereafter, in a meeting of the
Committee on Management of the Society
held on 24.6.2024, it was resolved that
given the fact that Smt. Kunta Devi had
already approached the Arbitrator and the
dispute between Smt. Kunta Devi and the
Society is pending before the Arbitrator, the
entire action against the elected Chairman
and
appointed
Secretary
is
wholly
unwarranted and the order dated 30.5.2024
is required to be reconsidered. It is stated
that the resolution alongwith a covering
letter was received in the office of
respondent no.2 on 25.6.2024. It is stated
that without duly considering the resolution
of the Committee on Management and
without
considering
that
the
dispute
between the parties is pending before the
Arbitrator, the other impugned order dated
4.7.2024 was passed.

6. The contention of learned
counsel for the petitioners is that the
proceeding initiated by respondent no. 2
under Section 38(1) of the Act 1965 is
wholly without jurisdiction and arbitrary,
inasmuch as for want of papers from the
previous Secretary of the Committee of
Management, and there being no record of
deposits being made by Smt. Kunta Devi in
respect of the flat allotted to her and nor
there being any evidence with regard to the
cost of the flat being deposited in the
account of the Society, legitimate notices
were issued to Smt. Kunta Devi in respect
of which a dispute had been raised by Smt.
Kunta
Devi
which was
referred
to
arbitration under Section 70 of the Act,
1965 and an Arbitrator was appointed and
before whom arbitration proceedings are in
progress. It is stated that under the
circumstances, the proceeding initiated by
respondent no. 2 under Section 38(1) of the
Act, 1965 on the complaint made by Smt.
Kunta Devi in respect of the same dispute
that has been referred to arbitration, is
without jurisdiction, unwarranted, arbitrary
and illegal. It is stated that there is no
material before the respondent to resort to
the drastic steps under Section 38 of the
Act, 1965.

7. In view of the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the petitioners,
the respondent no.2 was directed to
produce the original records pertaining to
the case.

8. Learned counsel for the
respondent no.2 has strongly urged that
there were adequate materials before the
respondent no.2 to resort to proceedings
under Section 38(1) of the Act, 1965 for
proceeding against the petitioner nos. 2 and
3. It is contended that it was not only the
respondent no.4, Smt. Kunta Devi, who had
complained, but other members of the
Society had also leveled serious allegations
against the Chairman of the Committee of
Management
because
of
which
the
respondent no.2 was justified in taking the
proceedings. Learned counsel has referred
to a letter dated 10.5.2024 on the original
record allegedly sent by several members
of the Society to the Principal Secretary
voicing their complaints. Learned counsel
has also placed reliance upon a judgment
passed by a coordinate Bench of the Court
in the matter of C/M The Meerut Sahkari
Avas Samiti & 2 Ors. vs. State of U.P. &
4 Ors.3 to contend that the scope of Section
38 of the Act, 1965 has been considered by
the Court and that judgment is squarely
applicable to the facts of the present case
and, therefore, the respondent no.2 was
8 All. C/m Grih Laxmi Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
795
justified in proceeding under Section 38 of
the Act, 1965 against the petitioners in the
present case.

9. In the original record a
complaint letter dated 2.4.2024 of Smt.
Kunta Devi is on record, which, however,
does not bear her signature. In that letter it
is stated that she tried several times to sell
her house, but the Secretary is creating
hurdles in the way despite knowing that she
is an aged lady and she requires to sell the
house for money. In that letter, she also
submitted her parawise reply to the letter
that was stated to be sent by the Secretary
of the Society.

10. A letter dated 4.4.2024 was
sent by the respondent no.2 to the
Cooperative
Officer
(Housing),
Shri
Arimardan Singh Gaur, in which it was
stated that with reference to the letter of the
respondent no.2 dated 20.2.2024 which was
issued regarding the letter of 30.1.2024 of
Smt. Kunta Devi for reconsideration of the
matter of sale of her flat. On that, the
Housing
Commissioner
had
directed
immediate inquiry and report alongwith a
proposal. It was directed that the resolution
with regard to the 'No Objection', be given
within a period of three days but that
resolution was not made available. This
letter of 4.4.2024 further mentions that in
the meanwhile, Smt. Kunta Devi's letter of
2.4.2024 was received by the office on
which the Housing Commissioner had
directed "Pls. get the matter enquired and
fix the responsibility and put up A.T.R. on
file till 9.4.2024". It was, accordingly,
directed that the needful be done within a
period of three days and report be
submitted before the respondent no.2.

In the complaint dated 5.4.2024
(page 66 of original record), the respondent
no.4 reiterated her complaint made on
2.4.2024.

11. It is pertinent to mention here
that on record at page no.21 is a letter dated
5.4.2024 sent by Shri Arimardan Singh
Gaur, Cooperative Officer (Housing) to the
Secretary of the petitioner-Society referring
to the letter dated 4.4.2024 of the
respondent no.2 regarding submission of
the inquiry report. It is stated therein that
there was a report required by the Housing
Commissioner himself by 9.4.2024. It is
stated in that letter that relatives of Smt.
Kunta Devi are constantly complaining to
the higher authorities as the matter was not
being disposed of within a time frame and
since Smt. Kunta Devi had become too old,
the matter has become extremely sensitive.
It was, therefore, stated that the letter be
taken to be a notice and if immediate steps
are not taken as per rules, then it should be
assumed that the Secretary is deliberately
delaying the issue and, accordingly, steps
would be taken under the Act, 1965.

12. On page 23 of the original
records is a letter dated 7.4.2024 of the
Cooperative Officer (Housing) addressed to
the respondent no.2 with reference to letter
no.61/Sah./dated 4.4.2024. He referred to
his letter dated 5.4.2024 issued to the
Secretary of the Society whereby a report
was sought. It was stated that even earlier,
the Secretary and the Chairman of the
Society were informed telephonically for
speedy disposal of the matter but on every
occasion the Secretary of the Society
narrated some legal impediment, and that
only after verification steps can be taken
and, therefore, had refused to issue a 'No
Objection Certificate'; whereas by the letter
dated 5.4.2024, the respondent no.2 had
asked for it being made available forthwith.
It was stated that he has been informed by a
796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
letter of the Chairman of the Society that
the Secretary of the Society has gone
abroad and only after his return in the
following month, decision could be taken
after due consideration.

It was further stated in the letter of
7.4.2024 that the Secretary of the Society
by his letter dated 6.4.2024 has informed
that Smt. Kunta Devi's flat was allotted
previously for more than 10 years to the
former Chairman of the Society, Shri R.C.
Sharma, and in support of that, copies of
two
maintenance
receipts
had
been
submitted by him, but no other good
evidence had been presented by him;
further, photocopies of various letters
exchanged with Smt. Kunta Devi had also
been submitted; that no final conclusion is
possible to be reached on the basis of those
letters; in view of the talks with Chairman
of the Society, it appeared that certain
documents of Smt. Kunta Devi were not
available on the record because of which
repeatedly the Management of the Society
was writing letters to Smt. Kunta Devi; that
in the matter, given the advanced age of
Smt. Kunta Devi, the Management of the
Society
ought
to
have
acted
sympathetically and acted with more
alacrity
for
disposal
of
the
matter;
therefore, it appeared that the Management
of the Society was not working with
adequate urgency because of which the
matter was pending for several months; the
officer has directed the Management of the
Society to dispose of the matter in a time
bound manner and the Chairman of the
Society has assured that he will make all
efforts in that regard. However, in this letter
of 7.4.2024, in the last paragraph, the
officer wrote that in the aforesaid inquiry,
the management of the Society was not
giving adequate cooperation because of
which the role of the management was
suspicious.
Therefore,
recommendation
was
made
for
undertaking
detailed
inspection of the records of the Society
under the provisions of Section 66 of the
Act, 1965 so that the role of the
management of the Society could be
inquired into.

13. By a letter dated 19.4.2024
(page 121 of the original record), the
petitioners wrote to the Cooperative Officer
(Housing), who was conducting the inquiry,
making detailed submissions with regard to
the various irregularities existing in the
Society which reflected wrong doings by
the previous Committees of Management.
This letter was in furtherance of a previous
letter dated 8.4.2024 sent by the Society to
the officer of the respondent no.2 in
response to a letter dated 5.4.2024. It was
stated that a letter was sent to Smt. Kunta
Devi asking from her certain information
within a period of three days but even till
18.4.2024, the response was awaited. The
letter recorded the following :-

(i) A list of 7 flats was
submitted in which 5 flats were
stated to be benami properties and
all 7 of which were allotted to
persons who were related to each
other, whose bank accounts are
more than 100 kms. away from
their residence at Aligarh, Hathras
and Mathura, in the Nainital Bank
at Sector -18, Noida. It was stated
that one Radha Raman is also the
brother of one of the allottees, Smt.
Sushila Saraswat, and her bank
account is also in that bank branch
even though she is a resident of
Morena
in
Madhya
Pradesh.
Several points with regard to the
discordance in the membership of
the persons mentioned in the list
8 All. C/m Grih Laxmi Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
797
were noted. It was then stated that
it is common knowledge that in
Cooperative
Housing
Society,
individuals flats are being allotted
to several persons and the existing
Management of the Society wants
to avoid any stigma in this regard,
but the Inquiry Officer and the
higher authorities want to maintain
the influence of Smt. Sushila
Saraswat (the former Secretary of
the Society) during the term of
present
Management.
It
was
alleged, inter alia, that for handing
over complete charge, repeated
letters and personal requests of the
petitioners were being ignored and
opportunity was being granted to
the
former
Secretary
for
manipulating the records. A direct
allegation made was that at the
instance of the authorities, Smt.
Sushila Saraswat is selling off her
benami
flats
in
which
the
authorities
are
appearing
as
accomplice. It was stated that
despite an unsigned complaint
made by Smt. Kunta Devi, the
Housing
Commissioner
himself
took cognizance of the same and
not only did he direct time bound
action but has also directed to fix
responsibility for not issuing a 'No
Objection Certificate'. It was stated
that it is not known that what the
Additional
Commissioner/Additional Registrar
had done to ensure handing over
charge from the former Secretary.
(ii) It was stated that from
several sources, proof was found
that the rent of the benami flats was
being made directly in the Axis
Bank
Account
No.918010038855435
of
Smt.
Sushila Saraswat. The details of the
same were enclosed with the letter.
No one had seen any of the
allottees other than Smt. Sushila
Saraswat and her daughter Ritu.
During verification, the signature
of each of them was made by
another person, which was different
from the signature made in the
presence of the members of the
Management. It was stated that in
view of the unnecessary inference
of the Additional Registrar, NOCs
regarding transfer of six of the
aforesaid flats had been given, in
which till that point of time no
dispute had surfaced. It was stated
that the flat in question would also
have been sold but for the reason
that despite assurance, the tenant
residing therein was not vacating
the flat and the reasons for the
same were inquired from which
inquiry it emerged that there are
some wrong doings regarding the
ownership
of
that
flat
and,
therefore,
the
tenant
is
not
following
the
directions.
The
receipts of dues with regard to
electricity and maintenance charges
(of the flat) were not made
available by Smt. Kunta Devi. As
such, her ownership of the flat in
question
is
suspicious
and,
therefore, giving of an NOC for the
transfer of that flat would not be
possible. It was stated that a
conspiracy was reflected in the
matter in view of the wrong doings
of the former Secretary Smt.
Sushila Saraswat, the details of
which were mentioned in that letter.

14. The Cooperative Officer
(Housing) submitted an inquiry report
798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated 20.4.2024, which appears on page
123 of the original record, in which it was
alleged that there was non-cooperation by
the Committee of Management of the
Society which was giving inappropriate
response. It was also stated in that report
that the relatives of Smt. Kunta Devi are
constantly demanding that the Inquiry
Officer
should
get
a
'No
objection
Certificate' (from the Society) immediately,
whereas the entire proceeding with regard
to the membership has to be done at the
level of the Committee of Management of
the Society. At the level of the Inquiry
Officer, no action could be taken till a
proper resolution is not passed by the
Committee of Management of the Society.
It was stated in that report by the Inquiry
Officer
that
both
the
parties
were
inappropriately pressurising him because of
which his position has become very
paradoxical. It was stated that for a proper
inquiry, a committee be constituted. He
recommended an inspection under Section
66 of the Act, 1965 so that the records of
the Society could be inspected and the role
of the Committee of Management could be
properly investigated.

15. In another complaint letter
dated 29.4.2024, which is on page 128 of
the original record, Smt. Kunta Devi, the
respondent no.4, apart from reiterating her
previous complaint, also sought to give
evidence in support of her claim and
alleged that the Society is going to usurp
her flat. In this letter, it was urged that steps
be taken against the Committee of
Management of the Society under Section
70 of the Act, 1965.

16. With reference to the inquiry
report dated 20.4.2024, the respondent no.2
issued two letters dated 30.4.2024. One
letter bears letter No.408/sah./30.4.2024
(on page 124 of the original record). In this
letter, in exercise of powers under Section
66, Shri Anand Kumar Mishra, Assistant
Housing Commissioner/Assistant Registrar
and
Shri
Arimardan
Singh
Gaur,
Cooperative Officer were nominated and
directed
to
undertake
a
detailed
inspection and submit an inspection
report within 15 days.

There is also a letter dated
30.4.2024 bearing No.404/sah./30.4.2024
(appearing on page 126 of the original
record) written by the respondent no.2 and
addressed to Shri Anand Kumar Mishra,
Assistant Housing Commissioner/Assistant
Registrar and Shri Arimardan Singh Gaur,
Cooperative Officer (Housing) directing
them to submit an inquiry report within
seven days. This letter refers to a complaint
letter dated 2.4.2024 received from Smt.
Kunta Devi against the petitioner-Society
on which an order dated 4.4.2024 was
passed directing the Cooperative Officer
(Housing) aforesaid, to submit an inquiry
report and that he, in turn, submitted an
inquiry report dated 21.4.2024 (sic).

The respondent no.2 further wrote
in that letter of 30.4.2024 that on the same
subject, another complaint dated 5.4.2024
was received by the office and, therefore,
seeing the seriousness of the matter, the
photocopies of the aforesaid complaint
letters were being enclosed with direction
that the facts reflected in the complaint
be examined from the records of the
Society and an inquiry report be
submitted within seven days.

17. Another letter is in the original
record at page 129 bearing No. 477/Sah./
dated 1.5.2024 issued by respondent no.2
addressed to the aforesaid two members of
the Inquiry Committee alongwith the
8 All. C/m Grih Laxmi Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
799
aforesaid letter dated 29.4.2024 (page 124
of original record) moved by Smt. Kunta
Devi. It was directed that the matter be
inquired and an inquiry report be
submitted within 7 days.

18. A letter dated 3.5.2024 (page
132 of the original record) was sent by the
petitioners to the respondent No. 2 which
appears to have been received by him on
8.5.2024. It was stated in this letter that the
flat in dispute belonged to the former
Chairman of the Society till the year 2017,
whose membership number is 22, but
instead of transfer being made by him, a
registered deed was executed in favour of
Smt. Kunta Devi by the Society in
September 2017. It was stated that Smt.
Kunta Devi became a member of the
Society in July 2012, but she has been
making payments of the flat since the year
2005. It was further stated that in her
undated application for membership of the
Society, her annual income was reflected as
NIL. It was stated that the allotment and
possession letters are both without any
dates. It was stated that despite bringing it
to the notice of the Housing Commissioner
as well as to the respondent No. 2, the
charge of the records of the Society was not
given to the existing Committee of
Management. Therefore, the Society is not
able to verify any statement. It was stated
that if any payment had been made by way
of any cheque or draft or online, the same
could have been verified from the bank
account statement of Smt. Kunta Devi.
However, whether the sale consideration of
the flat has been deposited in the bank
account of the Society is suspect. It was,
therefore, urged that pursuant to the letter
of the Respondent No. 2 bearing no.
477/sah./dated 1.5.2024, the proceedings be
expedited, or in view of the request made
by Smt. Kunta Devi in her letter dated
29.4.2024, an Arbitrator be appointed under
Section 70 of the Act, 1965.

On page 133 of the original record
is another letter of the same date, i.e.,
3.5.2024 written by the petitioners to the
Respondent No. 2 with reference to his
aforesaid letter no.477/sah./dated 1.5.2024.
It was stated that pursuant to the previous
letter dated 30.4.2024, Shri Anand Kumar
Mishra had asked separate reports from the
Society and from Smt. Kunta Devi on five
points. On the next day, the respondent No.
2
constituted
a
two-member
Inquiry
Committee to conduct an inquiry in respect
of the complaint letter, whereas Smt. Kunta
Devi had requested for action under
Section 70 of the Act. It was requested that
the request made by Smt. Kunta Devi
should not be ignored and orders be passed
for which the Committee of Management
has no objection. It was stated that in the
proceedings
under
Section
70,
the
examination of the five points asked by the
Assistant Registrar as well as the decision
shall be forthcoming.

19. On page 143 of the original
record is a letter dated 4.5.2024 sent by the
petitioners to Smt. Sushila Saraswat (the
former Secretary of the Society) with
copies endorsed (i) to the respondent no.2,
(ii) to Shri Arimardan Singh Gaur, and, (iii)
to Smt. Kunta Devi, in which it was stated
that the receipts of payments with regard to
the disputed flat as verified by her were
received by the Cooperative Officers
(Housing) in which she had written that the
amount has been received by the Society,
even though no such endorsement was
necessary; that the receipts were issued by
her under her signature; but since all the
payments had been made in cash,
therefore, proof of her having deposited
the cash in the relevant bank account of
800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Society is required; that since the
charge of crucial records had not been
given, therefore, there is no verification of
the amount of Rs.26,62,110/- having been
actually deposited in the bank account;
that since the matter related to the term of
of Smt. Sushila Saraswat, therefore, it was
required to be certified by her so that an
NOC can be expeditiously issued to Smt.
Kunta Devi. She was, therefore, asked to
verify the deposits by giving a certificate,
the format of which was enclosed with that
letter.

However, soon thereafter by a letter
dated 10.5.2024 (page 145 of the original
record), a complaint purportedly signed by
12 other flat owners was sent to the
Principal Secretary in the office of the
Commissioner and Registrar Cooperatives,
leveling serious allegations against the
petitioners. A copy of this letter was
received in the office of the respondent No.
2 on 17.5.2024.

By the letter bearing letter No.
766/Sah./ dated 17.5.2024 (page No. 146 of
the original record), the respondent No. 2
referred to the inspection directed to be
made under Section 66 and asked the twomember Inquiry Committee to include the
facts mentioned in the complaint letter
dated 10.5.2024 in their inspection under
Section 66 and to submit their inspection
report in the office as early as possible.

20. On page 214 of the original
record is a letter dated 15.5.2024 of the
petitioners received by the respondent No.2
on 24.5.2024, reiterating their previous
stand. However, thereafter by means of a
letter dated 29.5.2024 (page 218 of the
original record) the aforesaid two-member
Inquiry
Committee
comprising
Shri
Arimardan Singh Gaur and Shri Anand
Kumar Mishra, submitted an Inquiry
Report that is stated to be in response to the
letter no.404/sah./dated 30.4.2024 and
letter No.477/sah./dated 1.5.2024. Since
this inquiry report is a relevant document
for consideration of this case, it is quoted
hereinbelow in its entirety :-

"पत्र सं०- 155/सह०/2024-25 गाबजयािाद/
बदनांक- 29-05-2024
सेवा में,
अपर आवास आयुक्त/ अपर बनिन्िक,
उ०प्र० आवास एवं बवकास पररिद्,
िखनऊ
महोदय,
कृपया अपने कायाशिय पत्रांक-404/सह०/ बदनांक30.04.2024
एवं
पत्रांक-477/सह०/
बदनांक01.05.2024 का संदिश ग्रहण करने का कष्ट करें, बजसके माध्यम
से गृहिक्ष्मी सहकारी आवास सबमबत बि०, ग्रेर्र नोएडा,
गौतमिुद्धनगर की सदस्या श्रीमती कुन्ता देवी के द्वारा की गयी
बर्कायत के सम्िन्ि में अिोहस्ताक्षरीद्वय को जांच अबिकारी
बनयुक्त करते हुए सात बदवस के अन्दर जांच आख्या उपिब्ि कराने
बवियक बनदेर् बदये गये हैं। उल्िेखनीय है बक प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में
श्रीमती कुन्ता देवी के द्वारा गृहिक्ष्मी सहकारी आवास सबमबत बि०.
गौतमिुद्धनगर के सबचव एवं अध्यक्ष के द्वारा उनके फ्िैर् को हडपने
का प्रयास करने एवं अनापबि प्रमाणपत्र बनगशत न करने बवियक
बर्कायत की गयी है।
उपरोक्तानुक्रम में अवगत कराना है बक बर्कायतकताश
श्रीमती कुन्ता देवी के द्वारा अपने बर्कायती पत्र के साथ संिग्न
अबििेखों के माध्यम से अवगत कराया गया है बक वे प्रश्नगत
सबमबत के फ्िैर् संख्या-एच-207 की रबजस्रीर्ुदा मािबकन हैं और
तत्कािीन सबचव के स्तर से उन्हें यथापेबक्षत र्ेयर सबर्शबफकेर्,
आवंर्न पत्र एवं कब्जा पत्र आबद सम्यक रूप से तत्समय ही बनगशत
बकये गये थे और वतशमान में िी बर्कायतकताश श्रीमती कुन्ता देवी
उक्त फ्िैर् की कब्जेदार हैं। अग्रेतर अवगत कराना है बक
बर्कायतकताश द्वारा बवबिन्न स्तरों पर की गयी बर्कायतों के माध्यम
से अवगत कराया गया है बक गृहिक्ष्मी सहकारी आवास सबमबत
बि०, गौतमिुद्धनगर के पदाबिकारीगण द्वारा जानिूझकर उनके फ्िैर्
को हडपने की नीयत से उन्हें परेर्ान बकया जा रहा है और उन्हें
प्रश्नगत् फ्िैर् को बवक्रय करने की अनुमबत प्रदान नहीं की जा रही है।
अग्रेतर बर्कायतकताश द्वारा अपने बर्कायती पत्रों में यह उल्िेख
बकया गया है बक सबमबत प्रिन्िन द्वारा हर िार उनके फ्िैर् रान्सफर
8 All. C/m Grih Laxmi Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
801
के सम्िन्ि में िदि-िदि कर तकश बदये जाते हैं किी बर्कायतकताश
के हस्ताक्षर मेि न खाने, किी बर्कायतकताश की सदस्यता संख्या
बकसी और के नाम होने, किी बर्कायतकताश का फ्िैर् संख्या-एच207 बकसी और के नाम होने, किी बिजिी का बिि और
मेन्र्ीनेन्स की रसीद बकसी और के नाम होने किी िनराबर् जमा नहीं
होने, किी सबमबत में जमा की गयी िनराबर् सबमबत के िैंक खाते में
जमा नहीं होने आबद की िातें कहकर फ्िैर् बवक्रय की अनुमबत
प्रदान नहीं की जा रही है। बर्कायतकताश द्वारा अपने प्राथशनापत्रों मे
यह िी उल्िेख बकया गया है बक उनकी उम्र िगिग 85विश है और
सबमबत प्रिन्िन द्वारा इन तकनीकी बिन्दुओं में उिझा कर उन्हें
मानबसक रूप से प्रताबडत बकया जा रहा है।
उक्त के सम्िन्ि में जांचोपरान्त अवगत कराना है बक
श्रीमती कुन्ता देवी को आवंबर्त फ्िैर् संख्या-एच-207 को सबमबत
की ओर से सबमबत के प्रबतबनबि श्री सुनीि कुमार पुत्र श्री रमेर् बसंह
के द्वारा बदनांक-25.09.2017 को बर्कायकताश के पक्ष में
रबजस्र्डश डीड बनष्पाबदत की गयी थी। जांच दौरान यह प्रकार् में
आया बक सबमबत प्रिन्िन द्वारा काफी अरसे से बिन्न-बिन्न कारणों
से उनके फ्िैर् के अन्तरण बवियक अनुरोि पर आपबि िगाकर
फ्िैर् अन्तरण की अनुमबत प्रदान नहीं की जा रही है। उक्त के
सम्िन्ि में जांच दौरान सबमबत स्तर से अवगत कराया गया बक
श्रीमती कुन्ता देवी के फ्िैर् आवंर्न में कबतपय बवसंगबतयां हैं यथा
श्रीमती कुन्ता देवी को आवंबर्त मेम्िरबर्प नम्िर बकसी और को िी
आवंबर्त रही है। इसी प्रकार श्रीमती कुन्ता देवी द्वारा अपने फ्िैर् के
एवज में बकये गये िुगतान की जो रसीदें ितौर साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत की गयी
हैं, उन रसीदों से संगत िनराबर् के सबमबत के खाते में जमा होने के
प्रमाण उपिब्ि नहीं हैं। उल्िेखनीय है बक श्रीमती कुन्ता देवी द्वारा
प्रस्तुत िुगतान के सम्िन्ि में रसीदों/साक्ष्यों का बववरण बनम्नवत् है-

S.
r.
N
o.
Book
/Rece
ipt
Mo
de
Dat
e
Rupee
s
Progres
sive
1.
3/448
Cas
h
010920
05
0,19,1
10
0,19,11
0
2.
6/754
Cas
h
310520
05
2,00,0
00
2,19,11
0
3.
6/772
Cas
h
07081,82,0
00
3,01,11
0
20
05
4.
4/518
Cas
h
290620
06
2,80,0
00
5,81,11
0
5.
5/639
Cas
h
230320
07
2,00,0
00
7,81,11
0
6.
5/669
Cas
h
230320
07
0,40,0
00
8,21,11
0
7.
6/715
Cas
h
271020
07
0,20,0
00
8,41,11
0
8.
5/699
Cas
h
271120
07
0,10,0
00
8,51,11
0
9.
6/701
Cas
h
051220
07
0,80,0
00
9,31,11
0
10
.
6/722
Cas
h
290120
08
2,00,0
00
11,31,1
10
11
.
6/727
Cas
h
120220
08
0,30,0
00
11,61,1
10
12
.
6/743
Cas
h
120520
08
1,99,0
00
13,60,1
10
13
6/772
Cas
h
070820
08
102,0
00
14,62,1
10
14
6/779
Cas
h
280820
0,80,0
00
15,42,1
10
802 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
08
15
.
7/801
Cas
h
101220
08
2,00,0
00
17,42,1
10
16
.
7/811
Cas
h
070120
09
0,70,0
00
18,12,1
10
17
.
7/882
Cas
h
070220
09
0,50,0
00
18,62,1
10
18
.
7/862
Cas
h
250320
09
1,00,0
00
19,62,1
10
19
.
1789
Cas
h
071220
13
1,00,0
00
20,62,1
10
20
.
1886
Cas
h
030320
14
1,00,0
00
21,62,1
10
21
.
1894
Cas
h
240320
14
1,00,0
00
22,62,1
10
22
.
2102
Cas
h
030320
15
2,00,0
00
24,62,1
10
23
.
2110
Cas
h
120320
15
2,00,0
00
26,62,1
10

बर्कायकताश श्रीमती कुन्ता देवी द्वारा प्रस्तुत की गयी
रसीदों के सम्िन्ि में सबमबत स्तर से आपबि बकये जाने पर सबमबत
की तत्कािीन सबचव श्रीमती सुर्ीिा सारस्वत के द्वारा उक्त रसीदों
में यह अबियुक्त अंबकत की गयी बक प्रश्नगत िनराबर् सबमबत को
प्राप्त हुई है। उक्त त्य से यह स्पष्ट है बक श्रीमती कुन्ता देवी द्वारा उक्त
फ्िैर् के बिये सम्यक िुगतान बकया गया। यबद तत्कािीन सबचव के
द्वारा उक्त फ्िैर् के बिये सम्यक िुगतान बकया गया। यबद तत्कािीन
सबचव के द्वारा उक्त फ्िैर् के एवज में प्राप्त की गयी िनराबर् का
दुबवशबनयोग बकया गया है तो उसके बिए सम्िबन्ित सबचव एवं
तत्कािीन प्रिन्ि कमेर्ी उिरदायी है। बर्कायतकताश श्रीमती कुन्ता
देवी के द्वारा अपने पत्रों में िार-िार यह उल्िेख बकया गया है बक
उनके द्वारा सबमबत में बवबिवत् िनराबर् जमा कर उक्त फ्िैर् प्राप्त
बकया गया है और यबद तत्कािीन सबचव अथवा प्रिन्ि कमेर्ी के
द्वारा उक्त फ्िैर् के आवंर्न में कोई अबनयबमतता की गयी है अथवा
संगत अबििेखों में कोई बवसंगबत है तो उसके बिए तत्कािीन
प्रिन्िन और सबमबत सबचव उिरदायी हैं। वतशमान प्रिन्ि कमेर्ी को
उनके बवरूद्ध यथौबचत कानूनी कायशवाही करनी चाबहये बकन्तु
वतशमान प्रिन्ि कमेर्ी अनुबचत रूप से उनके फ्िैर् हस्तांतरण में
िािा उत्पन्न कर रही है।
उक्त के बवश्लेिण से यह त्य प्रकार् में आया है बक
सबमबत के पूवश पदाबिकाररयों द्वारा सबमबत अबििेखों का सम्यक
रख-रखाव नहीं बकया गया है और न ही वतशमान प्रिन्ि कमेर्ी को
सबमबत अबििेखों का चाजश ही हस्तांतररत बकया गया है। बजस
कारण से वतशमान सबचव/प्रिन्ि कमेर्ी के द्वारा प्रश्नगत् फ्िैर् के
अन्तरण में िार-िार पृच्छा की जा रही है। वतशमान कमेर्ी को उक्त
त्यों का संज्ञान रखते हुए उनके प्राथशना पत्र पर बवचार बकया जाना
चाबहये था बकन्तु सबमबत सबचव एवं सबमबत अध्यक्ष के द्वारा असंगत
प्रसंगों का उल्िेख करके श्रीमती कुन्ता देवी को अनापबि प्रमाण पत्र
बनगशत नहीं बकये जाने को सही साबित करने का प्रयास बकया जा रहा
है जो आपबिजनक है। सबमबत प्रिन्िन द्वारा सबमबत के अत्यंत वृद्ध
सदस्य को नाहक परेर्ान बकया जाना मानवीय गररमा के िी
प्रबतकूि है। यबद सबमबत के पूवश पदाबिकाररयों के द्वारा उक्त फ्िैर् के
आवंर्न आबद में कोई अबनयबमतता की गयी है अथवा सबमबत को
कोई क्षबत पहुूँचायी गयी है तो वतशमान प्रिन्ि कमेर्ी से यह अपेबक्षत
था बक वह सम्िबन्ित के बवरूद्ध यथौबचत बवबिक कायशवाही अमि
में िाते हुये न्यायोबचत कायशवाही की जाती, बकन्तु पूवश प्रिन्ि कमेर्ी
के बकसी कृत्य के बिए बकसी सदस्य को प्रताबणत बकया जाना
उबचत प्रतीत नहीं होता है। यबद वतशमान प्रिन्ि कमेर्ी को
बर्कायतकताश श्रीमती कुन्ता देवी के प्रत्यावेदन से बकंबचत असहमबत
थी तो प्रश्नगत प्रकरण के सम्िन्ि में उ०प्र० सहकारी सबमबत
अबिबनयम-1965 की िारा-70 के अन्तगशत मध्यस्थवाद योबजत
कर प्रकरण को बनस्ताररत बकया जा सकता था, बकन्तु सबमबत
प्रिन्िन द्वारा वृद्ध सदस्या को अनापबि प्रमाण पत्र बनगशत बकये जाने
के बविय पर उत्पीडन बकया गया है।
उक्त के अबतररक्त सबमबत के कबतपय अन्य सदस्यों के
द्वारा वतशमान प्रिन्ि कमेर्ी के बवरूद्ध गम्िीर बर्कायतें की गयी हैं,
बजसमें मुख्य रूप से बनयम बवरूद्ध ढंग से ए०ओ०ए० का संचािन
बकया जाना, सबमबत के कूडेदान को सबमबत के िेसमेन्र् में रखकर
सबमबत सदस्यों को परेर्ान करने एवं उनके स्वास््य को क्षबत
पहुचाने, रेन वार्र हावेबस्र्ंग के स्थि पर मदर डेयरी की दुकान का
8 All. C/m Grih Laxmi Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.