Vijender Jain,j. (Oral) ( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the refusal of respondent no. 1 to treat the petitioner as Member of the respondent no. 3-Society, w. e. f. 24. 7. 1970. Mr. Ishwar Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the father of the petitioner Shri Krishan Kumar was Member of Daya Nand Coop. Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Society") since 1966. On 11th June, 1970, the said Krishan Kumar wrote a letter to the Society that his share be transferred to his son i. e. the petitioner. The Society thereupon transferred the share of said Krishan Kumar in favour of his son and issued a receipt dated 24. 7. 1970 in the name of the petitioner. In the said receipt, it was mentioned that the transfer was subject to the approval of Delhi Development Authority. Mr. Sahai has contended that no such apporoval was required under the law at that time as the Society was goverened under Bombay Coop. Societies Act, 1925. Mr. Sahai has further contended that as per Section 19 of the said Act, a person becomes Member when a application for Membership has been accepted by the Society and the Managing Committee has approved such transfer. Section 19 of the said Act is extracted below :- "section 19. (1) The transfer or charge of the share or interest of member in the capital of a Society shall be, subject to such conditions as to maximum holding as may be prescribed by this Act or by the Rules. (2) A member shall not transfer any share held by him or his interest in the capital or property of any society or any part thereof unless: (a) he has held such share or interest for not less than one year; (b) the transfer or charge is made to the society or to a member of the society or to a person, whose application for membership has been accepted by the society; and (c) the committee has approved such transfer. " ( 2 ) ON the basis of these provisions, Mr. " ( 2 ) ON the basis of these provisions, Mr. Sahai has contended that in terms of law once the request of the father of the petitioner was accepted for transfer of his share, Society having given a receipt in the name of the petitioner, inter alia, transferring his share, the Committee thereafter having approved the Membership, nothing more was required to be done by the petitioner to become Member of the Society and thereafter was entitled for allotment of the plot as a Member. The Managing Committee of the Society also approved the Membership of the petitioner in August, 1970 and to that effect the Society wrote a letter to the Registrar, Coop. Societies on 29. 1. 1982. After 24. 7. 70, it seems that various letters demanding further instalments towards plot was served on the petitioner from respondent no. 3-Society and the petitioner from time to time deposited amounts of instalments towards price of plot to be allotted to him. A total amount of Rs. 24,750. 00 upto 26. 5. 79 was deposited by the petitioner with the Society. The Society called upon the petitioner to file affidavit to the effect that neither he nor his wife nor any member of his family dependent upon him owned a plot of land in Delhi, New Delhi or Delhi Contonment. Affidavit to that effect was filed by the petitioner. On being informed by the Society that the Registrar, Coop. Societies has objected to the name of the petitioner in the list of Members as his name has not been approved on the ground that the affidavit of the father of the petitioner was also required to be filed in the proforma. It is on the said basis that the Registrar did not approve the Membership of the petitioner on the ground that the mother of the petitioner had participated in a public auction for a plot of land at Pankha Road Residential Scheme on 10. 11. 1968. the possession of which was handed over to the mother of the petitioner on 24. 3. 1971. As the respondent has not approved the Membership of the petitioiner, this has led to the filing of the present petition by the petitioner. ( 3 ) MR. SANJAY Poddar, learned counsel appearing for respondents nos. 1 and 2, has contended that the Membership of the petitioner was not approved as a general policy. 3. 1971. As the respondent has not approved the Membership of the petitioiner, this has led to the filing of the present petition by the petitioner. ( 3 ) MR. SANJAY Poddar, learned counsel appearing for respondents nos. 1 and 2, has contended that the Membership of the petitioner was not approved as a general policy. He has further contended that no transfer had taken place and if any transfer had taken place, that was to camouflage the owning of the plot at Pankha Road Residential Scheme by the mother of the petitioner. He has also contended that when the said Krishan Kumar was himself not entitled to retain the Membership of the Society, in view of acquiring a plot of land by his wife, he could not have validly and legally transferred his membership in favour of his son. Lastly, he has contended that the Society has not agreed to include the name of the petitioner in the list of the Members of the Society. In any event of the matter, the petitioner could not have become a member of the Society as the Lieutenant Governor has frozen the list of the members on 3. 8. 67 and the transfer was without the approval of Lieutenant Governor. ( 4 ) I have given my careful consideration to the contentions raised by learned counsel for both the parties. In this case the respondent has erred right from the inception of the case as admittedly the father of the petitioner had requested the Society to transfer the Membership to the petitioner on 11. 6. 1970. The Society acting upon the request of the father of the petitioner has transferred the share vide receipt dated 24. 7. 1970 and had also passed the resolution in August, 1970, thus completing the formalities as required by law pursuant to Section 19 of the Bombay Coop. Societies Act. Let us examine the circular of the Delhi Administration, Coop. Department dated 7. 7. 1977 on which much reliance has been placed by Mr. Poddar to argue that after 3. 8. 67 petitioner was not entitled to become member of the Society. The case of the petitioner would fall in category (iv), i. e. , "persons enrolled subsequent to 3. 8. 67"in the aforesaid circular. For this class of persons in the aforesaid circular, paragraph 5 deals as follows:- "5. Poddar to argue that after 3. 8. 67 petitioner was not entitled to become member of the Society. The case of the petitioner would fall in category (iv), i. e. , "persons enrolled subsequent to 3. 8. 67"in the aforesaid circular. For this class of persons in the aforesaid circular, paragraph 5 deals as follows:- "5. If the society still has surplus plots after satisfying the claims of first 3 categories, referred to above, and the society, has already enrolled members against them, these cases may be sent in duplicate in a separate proforma similar to Annexure- a to the Cooperative Department within 15 days. These cases would be examined individually and on clearance from Cooperative Department, their case for allotment of plot by Land and Building Department would be taken up in the second phase. In no case the membership in Society shall exceed the number of plots available. For filling the vacancies which may occur the Society may maintain a waiting list after observing all the formalities in this regard. " ( 5 ) AT the outset I must point out that this circular is dated 7. 7. 1977 whereas petitioner was enrolled a Member in 1970. However from the perusal of para 5 above, the irresistible conclusion which can be drawn was that the endeavour of the State Government was to see that membership of the Society may not increase so that the lands which have been offered to the Society for allotment to original members may not fall short and if any Member who has been enrolled after 3. 8. 67, his case for allotment of plot by Land and Building Department would be taken up in the second phase of allotment. The Society was also expected to maintain a waiting list after observing all the formalities in this regard. Said circular nowhere prescribes any bar from becoming member of the Society, rather it casts an obligation on the Society to inform the Cooperative Department to send these cases for clearance and verification. The discrepancy has crept in as the respondents nos. 1 and 2 in the year 1979 and subsequently thereafter have taken the membership of the father of the petitioner and acquisition of a plot of land by the mother of the petitioner as a ground for disqualifying the petitioner to be a member of the Society. The discrepancy has crept in as the respondents nos. 1 and 2 in the year 1979 and subsequently thereafter have taken the membership of the father of the petitioner and acquisition of a plot of land by the mother of the petitioner as a ground for disqualifying the petitioner to be a member of the Society. When petitioner became Member on the transfer of his membership by Society, it is not the case of the respondents that he was having an alternate plot of land in his name or in the name of his dependant or other family member dependent on him. ( 6 ) THE father of the petitioner ceased to be member of the Society in the year 1970, thereafter it was immaterial if he or his wife acquired any other plot. Even otherwise the mother of the petitioner acquired the plot in question on 24. 3. 1971 as mentioned in the perpetual lease deed executed in her favour on 9. 5. 1972. That being so, the action of the respondent in objecting to petitioner becoming the member of the Society in 1970 on the basis of mother acquiring plot, is without any basis and is illegal. The same is hereby set aside. The petitioner is entitled to become Member of the Society as well as is entitled for grant of a plot. A plot has been kept reserved for the petitioner in these proceedings vide order passed by this court 16. 9. 83. The Society shall proceed in accordance with law taking the membership of the petitioner from the date when he was made a Member pursuant to the resolution of the Managing Committee of the Society in August, 1970. The rule is made absolute. Writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.