M. K. SHARMA,j ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Registrar, Cooperativesocieties, dated 26. 8. 1997 as also the order dated 7. 11. 1997 passed by theappellate Authority, namely, the Financial Commissioner, Delhi. ( 2 ) THE petitioners were members of respondent No. 3/society. The Society videits General Body Meeting held on 6. 7. 1996 and 27. 7. 1996 passed a Resolutionexpelling 35 members including the petitioners herein for non-payment of theinstalment which was required to be paid in terms of the demand of the Society. Theaforesaid order of expulsion was sent to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies forconfirmation on the basis of which the Registrar, Cooperative Societies initiatedproceedings on which notices were issued to the petitioners as well. During theproceedings before the Registrar, it was contended on behalf of the Society that allthe 35 members including the petitioners were expelled for non-payments of the firstinstallment of cost of land demanded by the Delhi Development Authority and,therefore, their expulsion was justified. It was also contended that charging of interestof flat rate of 18% was also justified as also the demand of Rs. 25,000. 00 ascompensation. lt was contended on behalf of the said 35 members that expulsion isagainst the Rules and that the Society had levied interest at a higher side, that is at18% in violation of the directions issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Itwas also contended that the demand of Rs. 25,000. 00 was also uncalled for. ( 3 ) THE Registrar considered the records and the contentions raised on behalf ofthe expelled members as also on behalf of the Society and thereafter proceeded torender his decision as follows; "1. As regards interest rate 18% the society has already conceded vide itsletter dated 22. 8. 97 that the rate of interest @ 18% will be divided in twoparts i. e. , 18% and 12%. The amount paid to the DDA by the society willattract interest @ 18% and the amount due from the defaulting members @12%. The society has already adjusted the interest and calculated the samefrom the due date of payment of installments. 2 As regards, the amount of Rs. 25,000/. I find that this was charged fromthe members who were enrolled provisionally and who had to pay provisionallyand who had to pay substantial interest. They redeemed the society fromamount of Rs. 4,57,632. 00 as interest. 2 As regards, the amount of Rs. 25,000/. I find that this was charged fromthe members who were enrolled provisionally and who had to pay provisionallyand who had to pay substantial interest. They redeemed the society fromamount of Rs. 4,57,632. 00 as interest. Had the society not made the paymentwithin the time allowed by the DDA,dda would have forfeited 10% cost ofland. It would have cost monetary loss as well as mental shock to themembers who have paid the cost of land. In my opinion, therefore, thisamount is reasonable and should be paid by each defaulter member. 3. As regard Rs. 90,000. 00 raised as final installment by the society, thiscannot be acceded to at this juncture because it is an amount raisedsubsequent to expulsion proceedings of which no notice had been sent to the. defaulter members. For this amount, the society has to give opportunity tothe defaulter members. Since the defaulter members have now come toknow, they have made this payment. They are directed to pay the samealong with other dues. However, society has conceded that no interest will becharged on this amount. On the basis of the above observations and directions each defaultermember is directed to pay Rs. 3,327,554. 00 (principal amount with interest andrs. 90,000. 00) and Rs. 25. 000. 00. The total amount comes to Rs. 3,62,554. 00. The plea of the defaulter members that they should be given reasonable timeto make payment as most of them have to apply for the loan from variousinstitutions, I am inclined to give them one month s time from the date ofannouncement of this order to make the payment either in cash or bydemand draft failing which, they will stand expelled from the society. ( 4 ) IT is thus apparent that the Registrar granted the petitioners an opportunity tomake payment of the amount indicated therein within a time bound programme butmaking it clear that if the payment is not made within the aforesaid period, themembers would stand expelled from the Society. Instead of availing of the saidopportunity, the petitioner filed appeals before the Financial Commissioner. All theaforesaid 12 appeals filed by the petitioners were entertained by the Financialcommissioner and by a common order passed on 7. 11. 1997 dismissed the appealsfiled by the petitioners herein and confirmed the order of the Registrar, Cooperativesocieties. Instead of availing of the saidopportunity, the petitioner filed appeals before the Financial Commissioner. All theaforesaid 12 appeals filed by the petitioners were entertained by the Financialcommissioner and by a common order passed on 7. 11. 1997 dismissed the appealsfiled by the petitioners herein and confirmed the order of the Registrar, Cooperativesocieties. While disposing of the said appeals, the Financial Commissioner heldthat the Registrar gave full opportunity to all the petitioners herein but only 7 of thepetitioners were regularly present before the Registrar who were heard. It was alsoheld by the Financial Commissioner that upon hearing the petitioners herein theregistrar gave them extra time of one month to make full payments, but full paymentswere not made by the petitioners to the Society and accordingly held that theirexpulsion had been rightly ordered by the Registrar. The Financial Commissioneralso found that Shri Vipin Kumar Gupta appeared twice before the Registrar,cooperative Societies but thereafter deliberately absented himself from theproceedings and his expulsion order was also rightly ordered by the Registrar,cooperative Societies whereas, the petitioners likes Mrs. Chandra Kanta Anand,mrs. Sandhaya Bhargava, Mr. Satish Chander Sharma and Mrs. Aparna Roy hadalready taken back the refund of their deposits with the Society and, therefore, theirexpulsions have also rightly been ordered by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies,through the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the present writpetition was preferred on which I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. ( 5 ) AS indicated in the order dated 7. 11. 1997 passed by the Financialcommissioner, Mrs. Chandra Kanta Anand, Mrs. Sandhaya Bhargava, Mr. Satishchander Sharma and Mrs. Aparna Roy have already taken back the refund of theirdeposits with the Society and, therefore, the present petition so far they are concernedis not maintainable as they had already taken back refund of their deposits with thesociety. Shri Vipin Kumar Gupta absented himself from the proceedings afterappearing twice only and, therefore, he was proceeded ex parte. It is, however, to beindicated that the cases. of the petitioners were examined and the Registrar,cooperative Societies gave all the petitioners including all the aforesaid sevenpersons one month extra time to make full payment but, in spite of the said opportunityfull payments were not made by them to the Society. It is, however, to beindicated that the cases. of the petitioners were examined and the Registrar,cooperative Societies gave all the petitioners including all the aforesaid sevenpersons one month extra time to make full payment but, in spite of the said opportunityfull payments were not made by them to the Society. ( 6 ) IT is needless to mention that the construction of the flats by the Society isdependent on receipt of the instalments from the members for the Society has noother fund but, to rely entirely upon payment of the installments by its members forwhose interest and benefit construction of flats are made by the Society. ( 7 ) THE amount was also not deposited before the Financial Commissioner duringthe pendency of the aforesaid appeals before him and even till date, not to spread ofthe entire amount but, not even a part of it has been paid by any of the petitioners. Opportunity was provided to the petitioners to make full payments and they weregiven one month extra time to make the said payments but still, the said opportunitywas not availed of and, therefore, it is apparent that there was no intention on the partof the petitioners to pay the installments as demanded by the Society although othermembers similarly situated have already made payments. It is also contended bycounset for respondents No. 1 and 2 that new members have already been inductedin place of the petitioners who have made payments and, therefore, there is nopossibility of the petitioners being inducted as members for there is no vacancy. ( 8 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that thepetitioners are themselves to be blamed for the actions taken against them, no reliefcould be granted in favour of the petitioners in the present Writ Petition. I find no meritin this petition and the petition stands dismissed.