S. N. Sapra,j. ( 1 ) BY the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226and 227 of the Constitution of India, Col. B. N. Khanna, petitioner herein,besides other reliefs, seeks to challenge the orders dated 16/04/1985, passedby the Lt. Governor of Delhi, respondent no. 4, in exercise of the jurisdictionunder Section 80 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972, (hereinafter calledthe Act) and another order dated 15/07/1982, passed by him, and prays forquashing of the same. For better appreciation, of the various contentions,raised by the parties, and the issues, involved in this case, it will be useful, torefer to in brief, the facts and circumstances of the case, which are as under :- ( 2 ) DIPLOMATIC Enclave Extension Cooperative House Building Society,respondent no. 2 herein, hereinafter referred to as the society , was formed withthe objects to develop lands and allot the same to its members, so as to providethem the house building sites. Petitioner is a Founder Member of the Societyand his seniority is at No. 2, in the list of members. Petitioner raised thesociety, made it success and was its Secretary for four years, till December, 1960. In appreciation of the services, rendered by petitioner, the General Body andthe Managing Committee of the Society, resolved to allot him a selected plot ofhis choice, on 22/11/1959. According to petitioner, he and his familymembers, also contributed extensive lands, i. e. about 15000 sq. yds. to strengthenthe case of the Society, for acquisition of further land from Delhi Administration, for developing a residential colony. ( 3 ) THOUGH, petitioner could demand five plots of 1200 sq. yards each,as per the policy, but, he asked for one plot of 1200 sq. yds. Because of personal vendetta of some office bearers, petitioner was allotted a plot, measuringonly 800 sq. yds. When, petitioner represented, against this allotment to thethen Chief Commissioner of Delhi, and respondent No. 1, he was illegallyremoved from the membership of the Society, on the ground, that petitioner hadrefused to pay for 1200 sq. yds. and that he could not give an affidavit, asrequired by Delhi Administration, since he had owned a flat/house in Defencecolony. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT no. 1 conducted a thorough enquiry into the matter. The then Chief Commissioner of Delhi, restored petitioner s membership, by hisorder dated 27/04/1964. The review application, filed by the Society, wasdismissed, by the Chief Commissioner. yds. and that he could not give an affidavit, asrequired by Delhi Administration, since he had owned a flat/house in Defencecolony. ( 4 ) RESPONDENT no. 1 conducted a thorough enquiry into the matter. The then Chief Commissioner of Delhi, restored petitioner s membership, by hisorder dated 27/04/1964. The review application, filed by the Society, wasdismissed, by the Chief Commissioner. With regard to the plot in Defencecolony, it is alleged by petitioner that, he had disposed off the same in theyear 1960 itself, the same year in which, the plot was allotted to him, becausehe wanted to stay on in the society. There was no ban on the members, owingother lands in Delhi, at that time, as, the scheme of large scale acquisitiondevelopment and disposal came into operation, with effect from 2/05/1961that no individual of a Cooperative Society could hold more than one plot. ( 5 ) IN spite of the orders of the Chief Commissioner, that equal size ofplots be given, petitioner was again allotted, only a plot, measuring 800 sq. yds. instead of 1200 sq. yds. On his representation, against this allotment, thematter was referred to the arbitration, along with the case of one Shri B. M. Sharma. It appears, that the case went up to the High Court of Delhi. Thereafter, the Society persuaded petitioner, to enter into an agreement on 4/05/1968. providing, inter-alia, that plot No. A-27, measuring 1200 sq. yds. in respect of which, there was a dispute, pending in the High Court, wouldbe allotted to petitioner, as and when, it became available to the Society, otherwise, another plot No. C-32 of 500 sq. yds. , would be allotted to the nominee ofthe petitioner. In view of this agreement, petitioner withdrew all legal proceedings, then pending. This agreement is annexure P-3. ( 6 ) AGAINST the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court,given in the writ petition, filed by Mrs. Kitty Puri, relating to plot No. A-27 of1200 sq. yds. , Lt. Governor of Delhi, filed an appeal, before the Division Bench. While allowing the appeal, vide judgment dated 10/01/1972, the Divisionbench held that Mrs. Kitty Puri was not eligible to be a member of the society,and thus, she was not entitled for a plot. ( 7 ) AS, the Society failed to allot the aforesaid plot. to petitioner, interms of the agreement dated May 4,1968, therefore, petitioner wrote torespondent no. While allowing the appeal, vide judgment dated 10/01/1972, the Divisionbench held that Mrs. Kitty Puri was not eligible to be a member of the society,and thus, she was not entitled for a plot. ( 7 ) AS, the Society failed to allot the aforesaid plot. to petitioner, interms of the agreement dated May 4,1968, therefore, petitioner wrote torespondent no. 3, for allotment. Respondent no. 3, vide its letter dated 22/03/1972, (annexure P. 4 ). directed the Society to allot plot No. A-27 to petitioner. In the meanwhile, Mrs. Kitty Puri filed Special Leave Petition in the Supremecourt, in which stay was granted. ( 8 ) PETITIONER then approached respondent no. 3, for carving out a plotof 1200 sq. yds. . to be allotted to him, as there was provision for carving outsuch plot, in accordance with the directions, issued by respondent no. 3. Respondent no. 3, vide its letter dated 20/05/1972, annexure P. 5, replied thatit had no objection to the proposal, and that the Society should submit a revisedplan to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, for sanction, as the Corporationwas the competent Authority in this regard. ( 9 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, Mrs. Kitty Puri withdrew her appeal and same wasdismissed as withdrawn, by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Accordingto petitioner, after the dismissal of the appeal, by the Supreme Court, the judgment of the Division Bench became final and binding. In spite of this, andagainst the findings of the High Court, the Society allotted the same plot No. A-27, to Mrs. Kitty Puri. Upon this, petitioner protested and represented torespondent no. 4, and the Vice Chairman of respondent no. 3. ( 10 ) IT is alleged in the petition, that petitioner received a notice on 10/09/1972, from respondent no. 3 and the Society, to show cause, as towhy, the sub-lease of plot No. B-7, of 800 sq. yds. , which had been allotted tohim, be not cancelled, for his not having constructed the house, within theprescribed period. The composition fee of Rs. 3,344. 50, for extension of time,was also demanded. On this account, petitioner was under great pressure toconstruct on plot No. B-7, or suffer the consequences of the cancellation ofsub-lease. ( 11 ) THE case of petitioner is that, his and his family needs were such,that unless a big plot of 1200 sq. yds. had been allotted to him, he could notprovide for himself and his family members. On this account, petitioner was under great pressure toconstruct on plot No. B-7, or suffer the consequences of the cancellation ofsub-lease. ( 11 ) THE case of petitioner is that, his and his family needs were such,that unless a big plot of 1200 sq. yds. had been allotted to him, he could notprovide for himself and his family members. Under these circumstances,petitioner thought of providing for his daughter in the first instance. He, therefore got the permission of the appropriate authority for a joint lease, in favourof his daughter and himself, which was executed by the Society and DDA. Mrs. Asha Ahuja, petitioner s married daughter became an independent member ofthe Society, because of the contribution of extensive lands, by the family. Afterdiscussions, with the representatives of the Society, and the Executive Officersof respondent no. 3, it was decided that in view of the fact, that petitioner andhis family had contributed about 15000 sq. yds. , of land, and that petitionerwould be allotted the bigger plot of 1200 sq. yds. , he, therefore, should relinauish his right to a smaller plot, in favour of his daughter, to remove alltechnical objections. Upon this, petitioner sought permission to relinquish bisrights in plot No. B-7, in favour of Mrs. Asha Abuja, and he was permittedto do so, vide respondent No. 3 s letter dated 26/08/1974, which isannexure P. 7. ( 12 ) BEING aggrieved by the allotment of plot No. A-27, by the Societyand respondent No. 3, to Mrs. Kitty Puri, petitioner filed a writ petition, beforethe High Court of Delhi in 1976, which was subsequently withdrawn with a viewto file the arbitration proceedings, before resporindent no. 1, under the Act. Inexercise of his jurisdiction, under Section 61 of the Act, respondent no. 1appointed his nominee as the sole arbitrator, to decide the disputes, as raised bypetitioner. ( 13 ) DURING the course of the arbitration proceedings, the officebearersof the Society, persuaded petitioner to relinquish his claim to plot No. A-27,and accept another plot of 400 sq. yds. , to be carved out and allotted to him orhis nominee. With a view to maintain the harmonious relations amongst themembers, petitioner agreed to the proposal of the Society, which was submittedbefore the arbitrator, on 9/06/1980, (annexure P. 8 ). The arbitrator gave hisaward accordingly on 30/06/1980 (annexure P. 9 ). yds. , to be carved out and allotted to him orhis nominee. With a view to maintain the harmonious relations amongst themembers, petitioner agreed to the proposal of the Society, which was submittedbefore the arbitrator, on 9/06/1980, (annexure P. 8 ). The arbitrator gave hisaward accordingly on 30/06/1980 (annexure P. 9 ). Under the consent award,and in view of the petitioner having withdrawn his claim to Plot No. A-27, allotment of that plot, in favour of Mrs. Kitty Puri was affirmed. The award furtherprovided that the Society would carve out a plot of 4010 sq. yds. , and incorporatethe same in the revised site plans of the colony, which would be submitted forapproval to the concerned authority; the plot would be allotted to petitioner orhis nominee. As, the Society failed to implement the award, in favour ofpetitioner, in spite of repeated letters, so, he filed an application, under Section71 (b) of the Act, for execution of the award. ( 14 ) PETITIONER was again compelled to file a writ petition No. 87 of1984, before this Court because, respondent no. 1 was not taking any steps todecide the application for execution of the award. Afterhearing all the parties,including respondents 1 to 3, the Court directed respondent no. 1, to disposeof the execution application, within 3 months. After hearing the representativesof all the parties concerned, respondent no. 1, vide his order dated 12/12/1984, held that the award, passed in favour of petitioner, was a valid awardand the same was executable. The objections, raised by the Society, were notaccepted. Accordingly, the Society was directed to honour the award dated 30/06/1980. Copy of the order is Annexure P. 12. ( 15 ) IN spite of honouring the award. Society filed a revision petitionbefore the Lt. Governor, Delhi, under Section 80 of the Act, against the orderof the Registrar. After hearing the parties, respondent no. 4, by the- impugnedorder dated 16/04/1985, allowed the revision petition and set aside the orderdated 12/12/1984, of the Registrar, inter-alia, on the grounds, that theaward dated 30/06/1980, by its very term, was not the final award, as, it wassubject to the approval of the concerned authorities ; that vide his order dated 15/07/1982, the then Lt. Governor, had not approved the award; that Mrs. Asha Ahuja, daughter of petitioner was in reality a joint member with her father ; that the membership of Mrs. Governor, had not approved the award; that Mrs. Asha Ahuja, daughter of petitioner was in reality a joint member with her father ; that the membership of Mrs. Asha Ahuja, even if she was an independent, was not relevant to decide the issues, because once having relinquished hisrights, in plot No. B-7, in favour of his daughter, petitioner could not be allottedanother plot, in view of the scheme of large scale acquisition, development anddisposal. Copy of the impugned order is annexure P. 13. The impugned ordersdated 16/04/1985 and 12/12/1984, have been cha. llenged on variousgrounds. ( 16 ) IN their counter affidavits, filed separately, respondents have eontested the writ petition, inter-alia, on the grounds that in view of the amendedclause 8 (viii), of the bye-laws of the Society, petitioner ceased to be the memberof the Society and, as such, he has no locus standi to file the writ petition ; theaward dated 30/06/1980, was a nullity, as the same was in contravention ofthe Rules, Scheme of large scale acquisition and the bye-laws ; the award wasnot binding on the Delhi Development Authority, because neither it could bemade a party before the arbitrator, nor it was a party to the compromise ; thewrit petition is not maintainable, since, it has raised disputed questions of fact ;the Act gives finality to the orders, passed by the adjudicating authorities and, assuch, the order passed by the Lt. Governor, has become final. ( 17 ) BEFORE dealing with the various contentions, urged before me, bythe petitioner and learned counsel for respondents, I would like to determine apoint, which has a direct bearing, on the decision of the writ petition, as towhether, petitioner was eligible and entitled to the allotment of a plot measuring1200 sq. yds. This writ petition has a long drawn litigation behind it. Aperusal of the facts and various documents, placed on record, do suggest, thatthe main cause of the various litigations, between the parties, was the grievance,on the part of the petitioner, that he had not been allotted a plot of 1200 sq. yds. ( 18 ) ACCORDING to petitioner, which fact is not disputed, that he was oneof the Founder members of the Society, and he and his family members contributed extensive lands, about 15,000 sq. yds. , to strengthen the case of Society, foracquisition of further land from Delhi Administration. Vide letter dated 22/03/1972, (Annexure P. 4), respondent no. yds. ( 18 ) ACCORDING to petitioner, which fact is not disputed, that he was oneof the Founder members of the Society, and he and his family members contributed extensive lands, about 15,000 sq. yds. , to strengthen the case of Society, foracquisition of further land from Delhi Administration. Vide letter dated 22/03/1972, (Annexure P. 4), respondent no. 3, called upon the Society to allot plotno. A-27, measuring 1200 sq. yds. , to petitioner immediately. This letter waswritten, after the Division Bench of this Court accepted the appeal, filed by thedelhi Administration. ( 19 ) THE Society itself allotted a plot of 1200 sq. yds. to petitioner, butthe same was subsequently cancelled, on the ground, that he had failed to depositthe initial amount and furnish the required affidavit, with regard to his propertyin Defence Colony. Petitioner was also removed from the membership of thesociety. An enquiry was conducted, by the Registrar, in pursuance to the representation made by petitioner, and the report was approved by the then Chiefcommissioner, Delhi. The decision of the Society, in removing the petitionerfrom its membership, was set aside. ( 20 ) THERE was an agreement between petitioner and the Society, on 4/05/1968, Annexure P. 3, to the effect that plot No. A-27 of 1200 sq. yds,would be allotted to petitioner, if and when, it became available to the Society. there are resolutions, passed by the General Body of the Society, as well as, themanaging Committee for allotment of bigger plot to petitioner. All these factsalong with other documents, show that, not only, petitioner was eligible andentitled to the allotment of a plot of 1200 sq. yds, but his entitlement was recognised by the Society, as well as, the authorities concerned. ( 21 ) THE first contention, urged before me, by Mr. L. R. Gupta, learnedcounsel for Society, was that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on theshort ground, as the petitioner has no locus standi because, he ceased to be amember of the Society, in view of the amended bye-laws, provided in clause8 (viii), which came into effect, from 10/09/1985. Mr. A. K. Sikriappearing for respondent no. 3, has also raised the identical objection, as to thelocus standi of the petitioner, on the basis of the aforesaid amended clause. ( 22 ) IT appears, that the Society sought to amend clause 8 of its bye-laws, by adding sub-clause (viii ). Mr. A. K. Sikriappearing for respondent no. 3, has also raised the identical objection, as to thelocus standi of the petitioner, on the basis of the aforesaid amended clause. ( 22 ) IT appears, that the Society sought to amend clause 8 of its bye-laws, by adding sub-clause (viii ). After amendment, clause 8 reads as under : "clause 8 : A person ceases to be a member :- (i) on death ; or (ii) for lack of confirmation of membership as per bye-laws (5) (b): or (iii) when his resignation is accepted by the Managing Committee ;or (iv) on expulsion under bye-law 7 ; or (v) on withdrawal after 3 months notice in writing to society provided that the member withdrawing does owe anything to thesociety and is not a surety for an unpaid debt. Withdrawal willtake effect from the date of disposal of his shares as provided inthese bye-laws; (vi) on ceasing to hold the minimum number of shares prescribed in these bye-laws; or (vii) on undertaking the business of purchase and sale of houses orland or for construction of houses either directly or on purchasinghouse or a plot or land for construction of houses either in hisown name or in the name of any of his dependents through anyother source and the member shall, within one month of hisundertaking the said business of purchase of a house or a plot ofland -shall inform the society about this. (viii) on ceasing to own a plot allotted to him in the society area. "the amendment came into being with effect from 10/09/1985. ( 23 ) IT may be noticed that vide order dated 30/08/1985, in C. M. No. 2993 of 1985, it was directed that pending further orders, petitioner smembership of the Society would not be cancelled. ( 24 ) CLAUSE 8 (viii) cannot be given retrospective effect. Petitioner hasfiled the writ petition, thereby, challenging the impugned orders, passed by respondent no. 4, under the provisions of the Act. It cannot be said, that on coming into force of clause 8 (viii), petitioner ceased to be the member of the Society. Firstly, there was a stay granted by this Court, prior to. the amendment andsecondly, petitioner has sought reliefs against the orders of respondent no. 4, andclaimed the implementation of the award dated 30/06/1980. It cannot be said, that on coming into force of clause 8 (viii), petitioner ceased to be the member of the Society. Firstly, there was a stay granted by this Court, prior to. the amendment andsecondly, petitioner has sought reliefs against the orders of respondent no. 4, andclaimed the implementation of the award dated 30/06/1980. ( 25 ) IN my view, there is no substance in the arguments of learnedcounsel tor respondents, to the effect that plaintiff has no locus standi to file thepresent writ petition or that petitioner ceased to be the member of the Society. ( 26 ) IN the next place, Mr. L. R. Gupta, has urged that though, thecompromise, on the basis of which award dated 30/06/1980, was passed, wasin direct contravention of the bye-laws of the Society, which provided that nomember of the Society, would be entitled to more than one plot, still. Society s obligation was only to recommend for carving out an additional plot of 400 sq. yds. , to the Delhi Development Authority, for approval. This obligation wasdischarged, because the Society did write to the Delhi Development Authority,for. approval. Vide communication dated 31/07/1982, the Society was informed that Lt. Governor, by his order dated 15/07/1982, had rejected therecommendation, sent vide its letter dated 16/10/1980. Under these circumstances. no further direction could be given to the Society, in this regard, asthe award was conditional and contingent. ( 27 ) AS stated above, petitioner was allotted plot No. B-7, measuring800 sq. yds. by the Society. With the permission of appropriate authority, Smt. Asha Ahuja became the joint lessee with petitioner, in respect of plot No. B-7,situated in West End Colony, New Delhi. Petitioner, vide his letter dated 6/04/1974, sought the permission of respondent no. 3 to relinquish his leaseholdrights, in plot No. B-7, West End Colony, in favour of his daughter, namely,smt. Asha Ahuja, who was a co sub-lessee. Respondent no. 3, gave the permission, vide its letter dated 26/08/1974, annexure P. 7, to petitioner, to relinquish his rights, in favour of his daughter. Thereafter, petitioner did relinquishhis rights, in favour of his daughter. ( 28 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, aggrieved by the allotment of plot No. A-27, by thesociety and Delhi Development Authority, to Mrs. Kitty Puri, petitioner filedarbitration proceedings before respondent No. 1. The Society, Mrs. Thereafter, petitioner did relinquishhis rights, in favour of his daughter. ( 28 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, aggrieved by the allotment of plot No. A-27, by thesociety and Delhi Development Authority, to Mrs. Kitty Puri, petitioner filedarbitration proceedings before respondent No. 1. The Society, Mrs. Kitty Puriand petitioner wanted to put an end to the long drawn litigation, for whichvarious efforts had been made. Ultimately, the following submissions were madeby the Society, before the Arbitrator, in its letter dated 9/06/1980, annexurep. 8:. "the DIPLOMATIC ENCLAVE EXTENSIONCOOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. COLONY s NAME west END . WEST ENDRAO TULLA RAM MARGNEWDELHI-110021: 9/06/1980. The Arbitrator. Sh. Surinder Gandotra,115, Palika Bazar, Connaught Place,new Delhi-1sub : Arbitration case No. AC/4/h/79-8 of Col. B. N. Khanna. Dear Sir,our Society wished to make the following submissions to youin the matter of the arbitration case between Col. B. N. Khanna andthe Society and others, at present pending with you. These submissions of the Society are based on a Resolution passed by the Managingcommittee of the Society in the meeting held on 7. 6. 1980. The Society has been feeling very concerned about this Ionstanding dispute. Various efforts have been made by the Society tosolve the problem forming the subject of the dispute. We are mostkeen that a reasonable solution should be sought for finding an amable settlement of this problem. It is in this spirit that the matter hasbeen considered by the Society and the submissions are being made toyou. "following are the submissions of the Society : (a) that taking into consideration of the fact that on a previousoccasion the DDA and the Town Planner and the Municipalcorporation of Delhi had indicated their concurrence to thecarving out of an additional plot, the same being in conformity with the permissible density and other related factorsaffecting this colony, the Society agrees to request the Arbitrator to give an award for carving out an additional plot of400 square yards in the West End Colony. (b) that with the carving out of the said additional plot of 400sq. yds. , the Society would desire that it may be allotted tocol. B. N. Khanna or his nominee and that the Arbitratormay be kind enough to give the award accordingly. "in taking the decision to make these submissions to you, thesociety has kept in view the undertaking given by Col. yds. , the Society would desire that it may be allotted tocol. B. N. Khanna or his nominee and that the Arbitratormay be kind enough to give the award accordingly. "in taking the decision to make these submissions to you, thesociety has kept in view the undertaking given by Col. B. N. Khannathat on the transmission of this compromise formula by the Societyto the Arbitrator, all his disputes against the parties involved in thematter, now before the Arbitrator, will stand fully resolved. It maykindly be noted that the Society does not assume any financial obligation in regard to the allotment of this additional plot. We earnestly hope that these requests will be acceptable toyou. Yours faithfully,sd/- H. D. Shorievice President. " ( 29 ) ON the basis of the compromise, the arbitrator, as nominee of respondent no. 1, made his award on 30/06/1980. The relevant portion of theaward, is reproduced below : "the parties to the dispute have compromised among themselves. The Secretary of defendant no. 2, Cooperative House Building Societyhave filed certified copy of Managing Committee resolution dated 7/06/1980, and certified copies of Col. B. N. Khanna letters dated 3 1/05/1980 (two no. addressed to defendant no. 2), which have beenplaced on record. It is very clear from these two letters of Col. B. N. Khanna that he has finally and completely closed all cases/disputeswith the society and other parties to the arbitration proceedings andcol. Khanna has further taken solemn promise that he will not fileany other legal proceedings in any court of law against the parties tothe committee of Diplomatic Enclave Extension, Cooperative housebuilding society. New Delhi, passed a resolution on 7/06/1980,recommending for carving out an additional plot of 400 sq. yardsand then allotting the same to Col. B. N. Khanna defendant no. 2 orhis nominee. Since claimant Col. Khanna, defendant no. 2 havemutually agreed in this case and accordingly defendant no. 2. Thediplomatic Enclave Extension, Cooperative House Building Society,west End Colony, New Delhi, hereby ordered to carve out an additional plot of 400 sq. yards and allot the same to Col. Khanna or hisnominee, subject to approval of concerned authorities in the matter. It may be interesting to mention here that contention of Mrs. Kittypuri, defendant no. 1, in the light of Delhi High Court judgmentin the case of Chander Nagar Cooperative House Building Societyltd. yards and allot the same to Col. Khanna or hisnominee, subject to approval of concerned authorities in the matter. It may be interesting to mention here that contention of Mrs. Kittypuri, defendant no. 1, in the light of Delhi High Court judgmentin the case of Chander Nagar Cooperative House Building Societyltd. , (AIR 1976 Delhi 299) is quite convincing and cannot be brushedaside and hence allotment of 1200 sq. yds. , plot of land by Lt,governor, Delhi to Mrs. Kitty Puri, is in order. " ( 30 ) THE Society wrote a letter dated 16/10/1980, annexure P. 24,to respondent no. 3, for approval, in term of the aforesaid award. It will beuseful to reproduce the letter, which is as under : 16/10/1980. THE Delhi Development Authorityvikas Minar,new Delhi. Sub : Arbitration case Col. B. N. Khanna v. Diplo Enclave Extension Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. and others. Dear Sir,a copy of the award given by the arbitrator, nominee of theregistrar Cooperative Societies (Arb) Delhi, is enclosed. It will be seen from the award that the arbitrator has askedthe Society to carve out an additional plot of 400 sq. yds in the Greenbelt for allotment to Col. B. N. Khanna. Col. B. N. Khanna is already the registered owner of a 800 sq. yds. plot (B-7) in the Colony. Your approval is requested to the carving out of the additionalplot of 400 sq. yds. to be allotted on Col. B. N. Khanna. It will be also seen that the Arbitrator has also upheld theallotment of 1200 sq. yds plot (A-27) by the Lt. Governor to Mrs. Kitty Puri. Thanking you,yours faithfully,sd/- (H. S. Bhagat)Brig. Hony. Secretary. ( 31 ) IN the letter of the Society, the reference to the petitioner, beingalready the registered owner of 800 sq. yds. of plot, i. e. B-7, West End Colony,new Delhi was factually incorrect, because, he bad already relinquished hisrights, in favour of his daughter, in the year 1974, with the permission of respondent no. 3. ( 32 ) THE submissions, made by the Society on June 9, 1980, before thearbitrator, for making the award, clearly stated that on previous occasions,delhi Development Authority, Town Planner and Municipal Corporation ofdelhi had indicated their concurrence, to the carving out of additional plots,the same being in conformity with the permissible density and other relatedfactors affecting that colony. 3. ( 32 ) THE submissions, made by the Society on June 9, 1980, before thearbitrator, for making the award, clearly stated that on previous occasions,delhi Development Authority, Town Planner and Municipal Corporation ofdelhi had indicated their concurrence, to the carving out of additional plots,the same being in conformity with the permissible density and other relatedfactors affecting that colony. As far as, the Society was concerned, by givingconsent to the, it was deemed that the Society accepted the position" thatmrs. Asha Ahuja was an independent member of the Society and after relinquishment by petitioner, of all his rights, she was the only registered owner. Allthese and other. disputes, which arose between petitioner and the Society, priorto the award, were, under law, deemed to have been resolved. ( 33 ) BY the award, the Society was ordered to carve out an additionalplot of 400 sq. yds. and allot the same to petitioner, or his nominee, subject tothe approval of the concerned authorities. By merely writing the letter dated 16/10/1980, to respondent no. 3, it cannot besaid that the Society discharged its obligation under the award, and more so, when in the letter itself, itwas alleged that petitioner was already the registered owner of 800 sq. yds. of plot, in the colony. This was a factually incorrect statement, which thesociety made in the letter. The right course for the Society, was to prepare a revised lay-out plan, thereby carving out an additional plot of 400 sq. yds. forallotment of the same to petitioner of his nominee, then seek the approval of the concerned authorities. That authority in this regard, may be the Municipal Corporation of Delhi or Delhi Development Authority. The documents suggest that on previou soccasions, this is also admitted in the submissions, made by the Society on 9/06/1980, before the arbitrator, that the permission had beengranted by the Town Planner/m. C. D. /d. D. A. ,for carving out additional plots. Instead of doing so, a letter was written, thereby, staling that petitioner wasalready the registered owner of another plot. This request was bound to berejected and so the same was rejected. Thus, in my view, the Society, didnot discharge its obligation, under the award. ( 34 ) LT. Instead of doing so, a letter was written, thereby, staling that petitioner wasalready the registered owner of another plot. This request was bound to berejected and so the same was rejected. Thus, in my view, the Society, didnot discharge its obligation, under the award. ( 34 ) LT. Governor, rejected the proposal of the Society, on 15/07/1982, which was communicated to the Society, vide letter dated 31/07/1982 onthe ground that no individual could hold more than one plot, in Delhi, theaward was not in consonance with the relevant rules, so the implementationof the award, relating to carving out an additional plot of 400 sq. yds. couldnot be permitted. This order cannot be sustained, inter-alia, for two reasons. Firstly, petitioner ceased to be the owner of the plot, or joint lessee, of the plotb-7, West End Colony. New Delhi, after the year 1974, and that too with thepermission of respondent no. 3, as such, at the time of writing the letter datedoctober 16, 1980, he was not the registered owner; secondly petitioner was notgiven any opportunity of being heard, before passing an adverse order againsthim. In other words, the relevant material and correct facts, were not placedbefore the Lt. Governor, including the fact that Mrs. Asha Abuja was theindependent member of the Society, holding a separate share certificate and wasthe only registered owner, at the time of passing of the order. This order isliable to be quashed. ( 35 ) NOW, I come to the impugned order dated 16/04/1985, passed byrespondent no. 4. Mr. Gupta submitted that the order, passed by the Lt. Governor, was, very much within his jurisdiction, and, as such, could not bechallenged in the writ jurisdiction. According to him, the award dated 30/06/1980, was not the final one, from any sense, whatsoever, as the same was subjectto the approval of Delhi Development Authority, who had got the final word inthis regard. ( 36 ) MR. Gupta further contended that there was no occasion for thesociety to file an appeal, but, the Society was within its right to challenge thesame in the execution proceedings, on the ground, that the award was not executable. Mrs. Asha Ahuja, was not an independent member of the Society, butbeing the co sub-lessee of plot, was taken as Member of the Society. The reasons,given by Lt. Governor, in. Mrs. Asha Ahuja, was not an independent member of the Society, butbeing the co sub-lessee of plot, was taken as Member of the Society. The reasons,given by Lt. Governor, in. support of his order, are justified, because otherwise, every person would transfer his plot to any person, who was not a memberof the Society, and then, claim allotment of another plot. In other words, theaward, given by the arbitrator, was against the bye-laws and the rules, thus itwas a nullity. ( 37 ) MR. Sikri urged that the arbitrator bad no jurisdiction to give theaward, relating to petitioner, as such, the same was a nullity. Further, Delhidevelopment Authority could not be made a party, in the arbitration proceedings, and respondent no. 3 was not a party to the compromise. In fact, Lt. Governor, vide order dated 15/07/1982, had rejected the request of thesociety, for carving out an additional plot, on the ground, that no individual,could bold more than one plot in Delhi. ( 38 ) ONE of the main questions, arising for determination, is whether,the award dated 30/06/1980, was in contravention of any rules or bye-laws,and, as such, the same was a nullity and consequently, the award not executable,as held by respondent no. 4. ( 39 ) TO find, answer to this question some of the relevant considerations,are the background of the case, nature of the disputes, referred to the arbitratorfor adjudication under Section 61 of the Act; the objects behind the compromise, which was submitted by the Society, vide letter dated 9/06/1980, the typeof compromise; nature of the directions given in the award etc. ( 40 ) AS already obeserved above, petitioner was entitled, as a matter ofright, to the allotment of a plot of 1200 sq. yds. As, petitioner was not given theplot to which be was entitled, this led to prolonged litigations. Petitioner, no-doubt, was allotted a plot No. B-7, measuring 800 sq. yds. but, he was notsatisfied and had been agitating the matter, with a view to get a plot, measuring1200 sq. yds. This is admitted fact that petitioner, with the consent of respondent no. 3 and the Society, made his married daughter, a? the co-lessee with him,in respect of said plot. Mrs. Asha Ahuja, was an independent member, andwasissued a separate share certificate. After discussion with the representatives of respondent no. yds. This is admitted fact that petitioner, with the consent of respondent no. 3 and the Society, made his married daughter, a? the co-lessee with him,in respect of said plot. Mrs. Asha Ahuja, was an independent member, andwasissued a separate share certificate. After discussion with the representatives of respondent no. 3, and with their consent and with an object of removing a technicalobjection in his way, for getting a bigger plot, petitioner relinquished his rights,as co-lessee, in favour of his daughter. This was done with the written permission of respondent no. 3. After this relinquishement, in the year 1974, Mrs. Asha Ahuja became the absolute owner of the plot and continued to be anindependent member of the Society. Petitioner also continued to be an independent member of the Society. This follows that Mrs. Asha Ahuja, was havingthe said plot in her indepandent right, and this could not create any impediment in the way of the petitioner, for allotment of a plot, as petitioner did notask for allotment of two plots. ( 41 ) IT may be pointed out that there were one or two precedents,identical to that of petitioner in the Society. ( 42 ) BEING aggrieved by the allotment of plot no. A-27, to Mrs. Kittypentitioner again filed a writ petition in the High Court of. Delhi, in theyear 1976, which was ultimately withdrawn, with a view to file arbitrationproceedings. ( 43 ) PETITIONER, being a member of the Society, referred the disputes,with regard to plot No. A-27, under Sections 60 and 61 of the Arbitration Act,to respondent no. 1, thereby, making aclaim that allotment of plot No. A-27,to Mrs. Kitty Puri, was illegal and that, the same be allotted to him. ( 44 ) THUS, the disputes before the arbitrator, were in respect ofplot No. A-27. With a view to resolve the disputes, the Society, enteredinto compromise, which was incorporated in the letter dated 9/06/1980,which is annexure P. 8. Petitioner agreed to forego his claim to plotno. A-27, in view of the Society agreeing to carve out an additional plot of400 sq. yds. and that the same would be either allotted to petitioner or hisnominee. This agreement, in no way, contravened any provision of any of thebye-laws or the Rules. In fact, the disputes stood settled between the parties. ( 45 ) THERE is another aspect of the matter. yds. and that the same would be either allotted to petitioner or hisnominee. This agreement, in no way, contravened any provision of any of thebye-laws or the Rules. In fact, the disputes stood settled between the parties. ( 45 ) THERE is another aspect of the matter. If, the part of the award,relating to petitioner, was/is not executable, then, it means, that petitioner hadrelinquished his claim, in respect of plot No. A-27, in favour of Mrs. Kittypuri, in exchange for unexecutable award. Before the arbitrator, petitionerchallenged the allotment of plot No. A-27, in favour of Mrs. Kitty Puri, onthe ground, that the allotment was in violation of the judgment of the Divisionbench of this Court and, as well as, the stand taken by the Administration,before the Court in appeal, filed by it. It cannot be said, that there was nosubstance in the allegations, made by petitioner before the arbitrator. This isanother matter, the petitioner would have ultimately succeeded or not. ( 46 ) IT follows that a part of the award could not be held, to be unexecutable, when the basis of the compromise was the relinquishment by petitioner of his claim, in respect of plot No. A-27, in favour of Mrs. Kitty Puri,in exchange, for the Society agreeing to carve out an additional plot of 400 sq. yds. for allotment to petitioner. Though, the carving out of additional plot,was subject to the approval of the appropriate authorities. The Society wasfully aware, before entering into the compromise, with regard to the disputes,then pending before the arbitrator, the relinquishment of petitioner s right, infavour of his daughter, in plot No. B-7. ( 47 ) NOW, I come to the next point, i. e. , what is the nature of theaward. ( 48 ) BEFORE doing so, it will be appropriate to state the provisions, ascontained in Sections 61, 71 (b), 76 (l) (i) and 80, of the Act as under : "61. Reference of disputes to arbitration (1) The Registrar may,on receipt of the reference of dispute under Section 60- (a) decide the dispute himself, or (b) transfer it for disposal to any person who has beeninvested by the Lieutenant Governor with powers in that behalf,or (e) refer it for disposal to one arbitrator. Reference of disputes to arbitration (1) The Registrar may,on receipt of the reference of dispute under Section 60- (a) decide the dispute himself, or (b) transfer it for disposal to any person who has beeninvested by the Lieutenant Governor with powers in that behalf,or (e) refer it for disposal to one arbitrator. (2) The Registrar may withdraw any reference transferred underclause (b) of sub-Section (1) or referred under clause (e) of that subsection and decide it himself or refer the same to another arbitratfor decision. (3) The Registrar or any other person to whom a dispute isreferred for decision under this Section may, pending the decision ofthe dispute, make such interlocutory orders as he may deem necessaryin the interest of justice. 71. Execution of orders etc.-Every decision, award or order dulypassed by the Registrar or arbitrator or Tribunal under Section 29,section 30, Section 59, Section 61, Section 70, Section 76, Section 78or Section 79 shall, if not carried out- (b) in any other case be executed by the Registrar or anyperson subordinate to him and empowered by the Registrar inthis behalf, in the samemanner as is provided in the case of acivil Court by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908 ). 76. Appeals- (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 77, anappeal shall lie under this Section against- (i) any decision or award made under Section 61;80. Revision-Subject to the provisions of Section 77, thelieutenant Governor may, suo motu or on the application of a partyto a reference, call for and examine the record of any proceedings inwhich no appeal lies to the Lieutenant-Governor under Section 76 (not being any proceedings in which an appeal lies to the Tribunal)for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality and proprietyof any decision or order passed and if in any case it shall appearto him that any such decision or order should be modified, annulledor revised, he may pass such order thereon as he may deem fit. " ( 49 ) THE parlies before the arbitrator were, the present petitioner, Mrs. Kitty Puri, the Society and the Delhi Development Authority. Respondent no. 3 was not a party to the compromise. In spite of service, Delhi Developmentauthority, did not put up appearance. The other three parties, settled theirdisputes and on the basis of the compromise, the arbitrator made his award on 30/06/1980. Kitty Puri, the Society and the Delhi Development Authority. Respondent no. 3 was not a party to the compromise. In spite of service, Delhi Developmentauthority, did not put up appearance. The other three parties, settled theirdisputes and on the basis of the compromise, the arbitrator made his award on 30/06/1980. Under the award, the Society was ordered to carve out anadditional plot of 400 sq. yds. and allot the same to petitioner, or his nominee,subject to the approval of concerned authorities, in the matter. In other wordsthe directions were issued only to the Society. It may be observed that, in thepast, Town Planners, Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Delhi Developmentauthority, bad been giving approvals for carving out additional plots, measuring about 800 to 1200 sq. yds. This direction, in no way, contravenes any bye-laws or the Rules. There was no direction, issued to respondent no. 3. ( 50 ) THERE is another aspect of the matter. The award was given by thearbitrator, under the provisions of the Act and the appeal lies against the award,under Section 76 of the Act. It is misconception to allege that the award wasnot final one or it was subject to the approval of the Delhi Developmentauthority. It is no-where stated in the award. What was subject to theapproval of the concerned authorities, was not the award, but the carving outan additional plot of 400 sq. yds. That could be done, only by submitting arevised lay-out plan to the concerned authority. Under law, the award couldnot be subject to the concerned authority, as, it was the final adjudication underthe Act, between the parties concerned. The only remedy was by way of appeal. ( 51 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I hold. . that the award dated 30/06/1980, was not in contravention of any of the bye-laws or the Rules and, assuch, same was/is perfectly valid and legal, as well as, final one. ( 52 ) AS already stated above, petitioner filed an application, under Section 71 (b) of the Act, before respondent no. 1, for the execution of the award,in August, 1982. Because, no decision was being taken on the application,petitioner filed a writ petition, being C. W. No-87 of 1984, thereby, seekingvarious directions. Vide order dated 13/09/1984, after hearing counselfor the parties, the Division Bench of this Court held that the application, forexecution be disposed off within 3 months. 1, for the execution of the award,in August, 1982. Because, no decision was being taken on the application,petitioner filed a writ petition, being C. W. No-87 of 1984, thereby, seekingvarious directions. Vide order dated 13/09/1984, after hearing counselfor the parties, the Division Bench of this Court held that the application, forexecution be disposed off within 3 months. ( 53 ) THE Registrar, respondent no. 1 herein, vide order dated 12/12/1984, allowed the application of petitioner. ( 54 ) BEFORE respondent no. 1, the stand of the Society was, that theaward was not executable as, the same was illegal. The Society was a party tothe compromise and consent award. I have already held that the award isperfectly legal, so, the Society could not challenge the award, before respondentno. 1. If, the award was nullity, then certainly, same could be challenged inthe execution proceedings. After hearing the parties, and considering variousquestions, respondent no. 1 directed the Society to honour the award dated 30/06/1980. The relevant portion of the order reads as under :"the contention of the society that she is a joint member withcol. Khanna, does not bear out after examining the records and themembership register of the society. The fact that Col. Khanna has,after taking due permission, got his name deleted from the joint sublease with Smt. Asha Ahuja of plot B-7 and he remains independentmember of the society confirms that he is an independent member. Col. Khanna is, therefore, still an independent member and, isentitled to a plot. It may be pointed out that if the intention of thesociety was to make Smt. Asha Ahuja a joint member, she should nothave been entrolled as an individual member with a separate sharecertificate, share money and membership number". ( 55 ) AGAINST this order, the Society filed revision petition, undersection 80 of the Act. ( 56 ) RELYING upon the order dated 15/07/1982, passed by the previouslt. Governor, Shri S. L. Khurana, respondent no. 4, held that in view of therejection of the award, earlier by the then Lt. Governor, the question of itsimplementation could not arise. It was further held that the award, by its veryterm, was not a final one, as it was subject to the approval of the concernedauthorities It was also observed that the Registrar had gravely erred in ignoringthat vital fact, i. e. , order dated 15/07/1982. It was also observed thateven if,mrs. Governor, the question of itsimplementation could not arise. It was further held that the award, by its veryterm, was not a final one, as it was subject to the approval of the concernedauthorities It was also observed that the Registrar had gravely erred in ignoringthat vital fact, i. e. , order dated 15/07/1982. It was also observed thateven if,mrs. Asha Ahuja, was treated as an independent member, same wasnot relevant, to decide the issue before him, because, the question was, whether,col Khanna (petitioner), was entitled to another plot, after having relinquishedhis interest in the plot, that had been earlier allotted to him by the Society. In short, the result of the order was that the award dated 30/06/1980, washeld to be unexecutable and in other words, it amounted to the setting aside of the award. ( 57 ) THE question, which arises for consideration, is whether, the awardcould be impliedly set aside, by exercise of the power, under Section 80 of theact. in my view, it cannot be done. ( 58 ) THE Act provides elaborate provisions for reference of disputes,their settlement by award, by the Registrar or his nominee, the appeals againstsuch award before the Tribunal. Section 80 of the Act provides that, Lt. Governor has no power to call for and examine the record of any award ororder,. against which the appeal is provided for, under the Act. This positionis accepted even in the impugned order. I have already held that the awardas within the jurisdiction of the. abrbitrator and the same was not contrary toany provisions, contained in any bye-laws or the Rules. The impugned order,in effect amounts to setting aside of the award. Thi. s, in my view, could notbe done, by exercise of power of revision under Section 80 of the Act. ( 59 ) I have already held that the award was final and the same was notsubject to the approval of any authority, whatsoever. What was subject to theapproval was the carving out of the additional plot in the revised lay-out plan. Mrs. Asha Ahuja was a full fledged independent member and this was relevantconsideration. ( 60 ) IT appears that respondent no. 4 has relied upon the order, dated 15/07/1982, passed by the then Lt. Governor, Delhi, whereby, it was held thatthe award could not be implemented. Mrs. Asha Ahuja was a full fledged independent member and this was relevantconsideration. ( 60 ) IT appears that respondent no. 4 has relied upon the order, dated 15/07/1982, passed by the then Lt. Governor, Delhi, whereby, it was held thatthe award could not be implemented. I have already observed above, that theorder dated 15/07/1982, was liable to be quashed, for the reasons givenabove. Moreover, it is not known, as to under which provision of law, theorder dated 15/07/1982, could be passed by the then Lt. Governor, thereby,rejecting the award or its implementation. The order, passed by respondentno. 1, in execution of the award, was perfectly legal, because it directed thesociety to implement the award. After examining the record, he rightly heldthat Mrs. Asha Ahuja was an independent and full fledged member of thesociety in her own right. For this reason also, the order could not be interferred into, by the Lt. Governor in exercise of his revisional power undersection 80 of the Act. . ( 61 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the Rule is made absolute and writpetition is allowed as under : ( 62 ) THE orders dated 15/07/1982, passed by the then Lt. Governor,delhi and the order dated 16/04/1985, passed by respondent no. 4, arehereby quashed. The order dated 12/07/1984, passed by respondent no. 1is upheld. Writ of mandamus is also issued, whereby the society, respondentno. 2 herein, is directed to implement the award, by submitting a revised layout plan, thereby, carving out an additional plot of 400 sq. yds. for allotmentto petitioner, and submit the same to the concerned authority or authorities, forits or their approval. It is further directed that the revised lay-out plan, interm of the award, shall be submitted within 2 months from today, by thesociety, to the concerned authorities. In case, the concerned authority is themunicipal Corporation of Delhi, then, it is hoped that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi shall take the decision, with regard to the approval, within 2months from the date of receipt of the revised lay-out plan, from the Society. If, respondent no. 3 is the concerned authority, then, it is directed that respondent no. 3 shall take decision, with regard to the approval, within 2 monthsfrom the date of receipt of the revised plan, from the Society. By the writ ofmandamus, respondent no. If, respondent no. 3 is the concerned authority, then, it is directed that respondent no. 3 shall take decision, with regard to the approval, within 2 monthsfrom the date of receipt of the revised plan, from the Society. By the writ ofmandamus, respondent no. 1, i. e. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, is directedto take steps for execution of the award dated 30/06/1980. Crl. M 168 of 1987 in C. W. No. 2059 of 1985 ( 63 ) PARTIES are left to bear their own costs. ( 64 ) THE present application, being Crl. M. 168/87, has been filed byshri H. D. Shourie, under Section 195 Cr. P. C. , for prosecuting Col. B. NKhanna, petitions in the writ petition, for offences, allegedly committed by himunder Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, for giving false evidence, as definedunder Section 191 of Indian Penal Code. ( 65 ) THE Division Bench of this Court, directed that the application belisted along with Civil Writ No. 2059 of 1985. The applicant, namely Shrih. D. Shourie, was given an opportunity to argue the matter. ( 66 ) IT is alleged that the statements and averments, made by Col B. N. Khanna, in relation to the writ petition No. 2059 of 1985, in his rejoinderaffidavit, dated 1/10/1986 and affidavit dated 17/06/1985 were/are falseand Col. B. N. Khanna knew the same, to be false. ( 67 ) I have already allowed the writ petition, vide my judgment passedtoday. ( 68 ) IN my view, no case has been made out for prosecuting Col. B. N. Khanna. ( 69 ) DISMISSED in limine.