Supreme Court Allows Writ Petitioner in NOIDA Plot Allotment Matter Despite Enrollment After Cut-Off Date — Considering Society's Bungling and Arbitration Award. The Court held that the petitioner cannot be penalized for the misfeasance of the Cooperative Society and directed refund deposit, but limited relief to special circumstances not to be used as precedent to overcome cut-off date.

Case Note & Summary

In this writ petition before the Supreme Court of India, the petitioner, Shri Bhagwan Singh, sought allotment of a plot in NOIDA. The respondents were the Chairman, NOIDA and two others. The dispute concerned the petitioner's eligibility for allotment despite being enrolled as a member of the Cooperative Society after a cut-off date fixed by the Supreme Court in an earlier decision. The petitioner was found to be one of the eligible persons entitled to be registered as a member of the Cooperative Societies for allotment of plots in NOIDA. He deposited the price within time on diverse dates as directed by the Society. However, NOIDA refused allotment on the sole ground that 1.5.1976 was the cut-off date and only persons who were members prior to that date would be entitled to allotment. Since the petitioner was enrolled as a member on 8.5.1976, NOIDA considered him ineligible. The record showed that the Society had bungled in the matter of enrollment of members. Consequently, the petitioner invoked arbitration proceedings before the competent authority. The Registrar in an award dated 9.11.1983 recorded a clear finding that the petitioner had complied with all rules and that the Society had committed bungling in not forwarding the petitioner's name within time. The award directed the Society to forward the petitioner's name for enrollment. The award became final and the Society was bound by it. Because the award came to be received after the due date, registration was made after seven days from the cut-off date fixed by the Supreme Court in NOIDA v. U.P. Residents Emp. Coop. Hsg. Bldg. Society, 1990 (Supp) SCC 175. The petitioner was in no way responsible for the delay in admission beyond the cut-off date. The legal issue before the Court was whether the petitioner could be denied allotment solely on the ground of enrollment after the cut-off date when the delay was caused by the Society's own misfeasance and an arbitration award had directed his enrollment. The petitioner argued that he had been agitating for his right to membership and allotment and had already deposited the amount; therefore, he should not be penalized for the Society's bungling. The respondents, having refunded the entire deposited amount, relied on the cut-off date and the earlier Supreme Court decision to deny allotment. The Court observed that the petitioner was in no way responsible for the delay and that he had already deposited the amount. In view of these facts, the Court held that the petitioner could not be penalized for the misfeasance of the Society. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed under special circumstances, but not on any other ground, and the order was expressly made not usable as a precedent to overcome the cut-off date fixed by the Supreme Court. The Court also dealt with the refund. The respondents had refunded the entire amount deposited by the petitioner, and the petitioner had kept the amount in a separate account earning interest. The Court directed the petitioner to withdraw the amount from that account with notice to the respondent, with liberty to the respondent to verify the fact. After withdrawal, the petitioner was to immediately deposit the entire amount to be funded by the respondent together with interest earned thereon. No costs were awarded. The decision therefore was that the petitioner was entitled to allotment despite the cut-off date due to special circumstances, but the order was confined to the facts and could not be used as a precedent. The operative directions required the petitioner to return the refunded amount with accrued interest.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

Writ petition allowed under special circumstances; petitioner directed to withdraw amount kept in separate account with notice to respondent, then immediately deposit entire amount together with interest earned with respondent; no costs; order not a precedent to overcome cut-off date fixed by Supreme Court.

Law Points