Court Opinion Summary — C. K. Mahajan, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner is a member of respondent No. 3 (the Society). He was expelled from membership on 2 November 1992, but an appeal against that expulsion was allowed on 31 July 1995, and the expulsion order was set aside. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies cleared the petitioner's name for allotment by letter dated 4 December 1995 and informed the DDA (respondent No. 1). By 17 July 1995 the petitioner had paid the entire cost of a Category‑I (three bedroom) flat, amounting to Rs. 3,73,000/-, including interest. The petitioner approached the DDA for allotment but had not been allotted a flat at the time of filing the petition. He sought directions for allotment of a Category‑I flat and claimed damages for delay.

The Society contended that all 109 flats had been allotted and that because the petitioner was expelled at the time of an earlier draw (9 April 1995), his name could not be included; it asserted that a subsequent draw on 30 July 1995 allocated the remaining 14 flats. The DDA acknowledged receipt of a proposal after the petitioner’s name was cleared but said the draw of lots could be held only after the Society deposited outstanding dues (e.g., ground rent).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the petitioner, whose membership was restored and who had paid the full cost of the flat, was entitled to allotment of a Category‑I flat.
2. Whether the draw of lots held by the Society on 30 July 1995 (allocating the remaining 14 flats) complied with the procedure prescribed by the Registrar's Directive dated 31.5.1984 issued under Rule 77 of the Delhi Cooperative Group Housing Societies Rules.
3. What remedy should follow if the 30 July 1995 draw was invalid — specifically, whether the draw should be set aside and fresh allotment conducted by the DDA in accordance with the Directive.
4. What consequences follow if the Society has already handed physical possession of the flats to persons who were not valid allottees.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• He is entitled to allotment of a Category‑I flat because his membership was restored and he paid the full cost (including interest) by 17 July 1995.
• Eight Category‑I flats were, he contends, still unallotted at the relevant time and the DDA has not taken steps to allot.
• The draw of lots dated 30 July 1995 was not conducted in accordance with the Act and the Rules and is therefore bad and liable to be set aside.

Respondent No.1 (DDA)'s Position

• Conceded receipt of a proposal from the Society after the petitioner's name was cleared by the Registrar.
• Stated that the Society had not cleared all dues (including ground rent) and that the draw of lots can only be held after the Society deposits the dues.

Respondent No.3 (Society)'s Arguments

• Asserted that all 109 flats had been allotted and therefore no Category‑I flat remained available for the petitioner.
• Explained that a draw held on 9 April 1995 allotted flats to 99 members (75 of Category‑I, 24 of Category‑II), leaving eight Category‑I and six Category‑II flats unallotted; and that on 30 July 1995 a further draw was held by the Society allocating the remaining 14 flats.
• Conceded that one Category‑II flat (No. 82) was being used for office purposes and could be allotted to the petitioner subject to clearing dues.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court observed the following, based on the materials before it:

1. Eligibility and payment: It was not disputed that the petitioner was eligible for Category‑I allotment, his name had been cleared by the Registrar, and he had deposited the entire cost of the flat (with interest). Thus the petitioner was entitled to a Category‑I flat in principle.
2. Mandatory procedure under Registrar's Directive: The court relied on the Directive dated 31.5.1984 (issued under Rule 77 of the Delhi Cooperative Group Housing Societies Rules), which prescribes that the allotment of flats "shall be held by the DDA through draw of lots and no society shall allot the flats itself," and sets out that the DDA, after clearing the list of members with the Cooperative Department, shall fix the date, time and place of the draw; the draw shall be held in the presence of office bearers and members of the Society and representatives of the Registrar should be invited.
3. Non‑compliance: The court found the Society had not followed that mandated procedure in respect of the allotment of the 14 remaining flats — notably, the DDA was not approached to fix the date/time/place and the draw was conducted by the Society itself on 30 July 1995.
4. Legal consequence: Because the prescribed procedure was not followed, the action of the Society in allotting the 14 flats on 30 July 1995 was held to be legally invalid and could not be sustained.
5. Remedial directions: On that basis the court set aside the draw of lots held by the Society on 30 July 1995 and directed the Society to submit a proposal to the DDA within two weeks for conducting a draw in respect of the 14 flats after the Society cleared dues of ground rent. The court further directed that, if the Society had already handed physical possession of any of those flats to persons who were not valid allottees, it was the Society's responsibility to get those flats vacated and make them available for fresh allotment in accordance with the Directive of 31.5.1984.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The petition was allowed and the draw of lots held by the Society on 30 July 1995 (allocating the remaining 14 flats) was set aside as being not in conformity with the Directive dated 31.5.1984 issued under Rule 77. The Society was directed to submit a proposal to the DDA within two weeks for conducting the draw after clearing the ground rent dues. If the Society had already delivered physical possession of those flats to persons who were not valid allottees, the Society must get them vacated and make them available for fresh allotment in accordance with the Directive.

Implications: The direct effect is that the contested allotments of 30 July 1995 are invalidated and a fresh, DDA‑conducted draw must be arranged following the Registrar's Directive, after the Society clears specified dues. The order imposes responsibility on the Society to vacate any improperly delivered possession and to follow the prescribed allotment procedure. The opinion does not record any broader precedent being established beyond enforcing compliance with the Directive; no specific award of damages in favour of the petitioner is recorded in the court's operative directions.

This summary is strictly confined to the information contained in the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts beyond that text.