Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Anita Goel vs Gyanesh Bharati (Ias) on 1 February, 2023
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, Dipankar Datta
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INHERENT JURISDICTION
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 455-456 OF 2022
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 1505-1506 OF 2017
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 10375-10376 OF 2017
ANITA GOEL & ORS. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
GYANESH BHARATI (IAS) & ORS. RESPONDENTS
W I T H
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 457-458 OF 2022
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 1505-1506 OF 2017
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 10375-10376 OF 2017
A N D
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1610 OF 2022
IN
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 1505-1506 OF 2017
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 10375-10376 OF 2017
O R D E R
Having heard counsel for the applicant, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the application for intervention (I.A. No. 138636 of 2022). Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
In these proceedings, the petitioners seeks enforcement of an order made in the course of contempt proceedings (Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 1505-1506 of 2017). Those contempt proceedings have Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by been filed by a group of original allottees, whose membership in NIRMALA NEGI Date: 2023.02.04 10:05:19 IST Reason: the Modern Housing Co-operative Society had been 1 cancelled/terminated. The present petitioners had been inducted instead of said original allottees/members during the pendency of approval proceedings initiated in regard to their expulsion under the erstwhile Rule 36 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973. The controversy concerning the expulsion achieved quietus with the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 31.01.2017 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8553 of 2014 and other accompanying proceedings, which set aside the expulsions. The judgment of the High Court was confirmed by this Court which dismissed batch of Special Leave Petitions on 31.03.2017. The original members (14 in number) whose names were set out in the order dated 08.05.2019, had sought enforcement of the directions. As a consequence of the directions, the present petitioners were directed to vacate the premises which they were occupying at that stage to enable the original allottees to obtain them. In the course of the order dated 08.05.2019 (in Contempt Petition Nos. 1505-1506 of 2017), this Court had observed as follows:
“10. Some of the salient features in the matter are:-
1. The alleged contemnors have violated the orders passed by this Court and despite having furnished appropriate undertakings, have failed to vacate and hand over possession. But there are certain equities in their favour; in that they were inducted as members not clandestinely but against the resultant vacancies after expulsion of certain members, that they had paid all the instalments in time, that on the basis of such instalments paid by the members including the alleged contemnors the construction was completed, and that they were put in possession of the apartments soon thereafter.2
2. It is only as a result of the expulsion orders of the contempt petitioners getting set aside that the alleged contemnors have to vacate their apartments and make way for the contempt petitioners.
3. The society had raised amounts and was benefited from two sets of persons that is the alleged contemnors as well as the contempt petitioners and the fact of the matter is that the society is presently having funds to the tune of more than Rs.4 crores.
11. Going by the reports made by the Architect a new building can be constructed with 18 apartments, which means that after satisfying the requirements of all the alleged contemnors there will still be some apartments left, from the sale of which money for construction can be garnered.
Furthermore, according to the Architect, within the FAR available to it, the society can construct such new building. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi has also in principle agreed that if FAR is available, the authority would not have any objection to grant permission for construction of a new building.
12. In the circumstances, though we are considering the matter in contempt jurisdiction, in our considered view ends of justice would be met, if following directions are passed:-
a) All the alleged contemnors shall vacate their respective apartments on or before 31.08.2019. The apartments so vacated shall thereafter be allotted to those persons who were directed to be re-admitted as members in terms of para 9 of the order passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 24.02.2012. The allotment shall be done in the presence of an Official from the Office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies in a manner known to law.
b) Each of the alleged contemnors, if he or she desires to have a new apartment in the newly erected building, shall deposit a sum of Rs.10 lakhs with the Administrator of the Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited on or before 31.10.2019. Along with such deposit, an appropriate affidavit shall be filed 3 by such person (s) undertaking that in case any further amount (s) are to be deposited towards the cost of construction, he or she shall abide by such requisition scrupulously.
c) Upon such deposit and furnishing of an affidavit every such person shall be re-admitted in the Society as a Member.
d) Within one month from the date of this order, the Administrator shall prefer an appropriate application annexing therewith all the required documents including plans and drawings and seek permission to erect a new building with 18 apartments. Such application shall be preferred with the concerned appropriate Authorities including Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
e) Municipal Corporation of Delhi which has agreed in principle that the permission for erecting a new building can be granted, shall consider said application and take appropriate decision in the matter within one month from the date when the application is preferred.
f) After the construction has begun, the Administrator shall be entitled to initiate the process for having new members admitted who are willing to deposit such sums as are required towards the cost of construction of an individual apartments which could then be allotted to them.
g) The Administrator shall also be entitled to have a fresh draw of lots in the presence of an Official from the Office of Registrar, Cooperative Societies in respect of the building to be constructed so that each of those 18 apartments could be allotted to the concerned persons including the alleged contemnors herein.
h) The alleged contemnors shall have to find new or transit accommodation till they are finally put in possession of the apartments so allotted to them after completion of construction. The cost and charges in that behalf shall be borne by the alleged contemnors and they shall not be entitled to have any amount reimbursed either from the society or from any of the 4 members.
i) Whether the cost of construction must come entirely from the allottees of apartments in the new building to be constructed or whether the society would like to contribute in that behalf, is a matter which ought to be decided by the society. We may only observe that the alleged contemnors had made their contribution and as a matter of fact the society has funds to the tune of more than Rs.4 crores available with it.” The petitioners urged that despite directions, there has been hardly any compliance with respect to their entitlement, and that construction has not been completed. The deliberations in these contempt proceedings prolonged for some time because the Court was engaged in considering two proposals. The first was in accord with the order of this Court on 08.05.2019 i.e., the construction of a new tower as a result of increased FAR and the other, apparently mooted by the then Administrator of the society, was that the flats should be built on the stilt parking area.
It has transpired that the proposal to build the new flats on stilt parking area is not permissible under the Municipal Bye-laws. In the circumstances, the most appropriate course would be to proceed with the original proposal of construction of all 18 flats by erecting a new tower, within the plot having regard to the increased FAR.
The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi submitted that a proposal has been submitted to the Corporation which would be done and that the Corporation may be given sometime to process it. 5 Having regard to the length of time which has elapsed, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi shall process the application and complete the grant of approval within eight weeks from today. Thereafter, the society shall ensure that the construction of a new tower with 18 flats in terms of the proposal is taken up and completed within 18 months.
The following petitioners would be entitled to allotment of the newly constructed flats: (1) Dinesh Kumar, (2) Harbinder Kaur Sarna, (3) Ritu Sethi, (4) Sneh Lata Khurana, (5) Ritu Singh, (6) Anita Goel, (7) Trishla Jain alias S.B. Sharma, (8) Umesh Kumar Jain, (9) Arun Kumar Jain, (10) Devender Nath Sharma, (11) Vineet Mittal, and (12) Sanjay Kumar.
It is stated that the names of Ms. Raj Rani and Mr. Dhananjay Garg also have to be reflected as among the 14 persons affected pursuant to the orders of the Court. Reference has been made to an orders passed in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1505 of 2017 dated 28.02.2019 and in M.A. No. 1262 of 2018 dated 29.07.2019 in separately disposed of matters. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies shall verify the entitlement of Ms. Raj Rani and Mr. Dhananjay Garg, whose names shall be included, subject to verification of their having completed the formalities including the deposit of amounts as in the case of the others. During the hearing, it was highlighted that once allotments are completed and possession handed over to the 14 persons, 4 flats would still be left. This Court is of the opinion that since the petitioners had contributed to the construction of the flats which they were allotted and they were in occupation of the flats till 6 this Court directed them to vacate the premises, and also having regard to the fact that they have contributed further amounts (Rs.10 lakhs each) towards the cost of the new construction to be completed, it would be just and proper that the 4 excess flats are put to sale and after recovering the cost of construction, 50% of the excess amount, if any, should be distributed to the present petitioners.
It is further clarified that the process of sale/allotment of flat to new members who may be enrolled shall be in accordance with the provisions of Delhi Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules framed thereunder, to be supervised under the aegis of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The contempt petitions are disposed of in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1610 OF 2022 in CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 1505-1506 OF 2017 in SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 10375-10376 OF 2017 Counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the miscellaneous application.
The miscellaneous application is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
..................J. (S. RAVINDRA BHAT) ..................J. (DIPANKAR DATTA) NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 01, 2023.
7
ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.14 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 455-456 OF 2022 IN CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 1505-1506 OF 2017 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 10375-10376 OF 2017 ANITA GOEL & ORS. PETITIONERS VERSUS GYANESH BHARATI (IAS) & ORS. RESPONDENTS ([TO BE TAKEN UP AT 2:00 P.M.] IA No. 96097/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING PAPER BOOKS) WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 457-458 OF 2022 IN CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 1505-1506 OF 2017 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 10375-10376 OF 2017 (XIV) (IA No. 105043/2022 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION) AND MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1610 OF 2022 IN CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 1505-1506 OF 2017 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 10375-10376 OF 2017 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.105123/2022-CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION) Date : 01-02-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA For Parties Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, AOR Mr. Krishnamohan K., AOR Ms. Dania Nayyar, Adv.
Ms. Bharti Tyagi, AOR Mr. Aditya Singh, AOR Mr. Shubham Singh, Adv.
Mr. K.M. Natraj, Ld. ASG Ms. Diksha Rai, Adv.
Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv.
Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv.
Mr. Sharath Narayan Nambiar, Adv.
Mr. Shreekant N., AOR Mr. Prateek Dhankhar, Adv.
Ms. R. Kohli, Adv.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR 8 Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv.
Mr. R. C. Kaushik, AOR Mr. Jayant K. Sud, A.S.G. Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv.
Mr. Kartik Jasra, Adv.
Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, AOR Mr. Wajeeh Shafiq, AOR Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. K.p. Singh, Adv.
Ms. Payal Swarup, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Giri, Adv.
Dr. Joginder Singh Berwal, Adv.
Mrs. Damyanti Juneja, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 455-456 OF 2022 IN CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 1505-1506 OF 2017 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 10375-10376 OF 2017 AND CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 457-458 OF 2022 IN CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 1505-1506 OF 2017 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 10375-10376 OF 2017 The contempt petitions are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1610 OF 2022 IN CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 1505-1506 OF 2017 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS. 10375-10376 OF 2017 The miscellaneous application is dismissed as withdrawn in terms of the signed order.
(NITIN TALREJA) (MATHEW ABRAHAM)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)
9