JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. There is no opposition to this application. Accordingly, it is allowed and the legal representative of Smt. Santosh Jain (Respondent No. 15), that is Mr. Sanjeev Jain is brought on record as Respondent No. 15(a). The application is disposed of W.P. (C) No. 2890/1995 .1. More than 20 years ago (on 24th February, 1988) the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (for short RCS) passed an order to the effect that Respondent Nos. 1 and .4 to 18 (amongst others) had incurred a disqualification for membership of the Petitioner society under Rule 25 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 and the Bye-laws of the Petitioner society. 2. It appears that on a complaint (not made by the Petitioner society), the RCS took suo motu action and disqualified these Respondents (and others) from membership of the Petitioner society, on the ground that they were not residents of Delhi at the relevant time. 3. Feeling aggrieved, these Respondents (and others) preferred a revision petition before the Lieutenant Governor who held, by an order on 9th December, 1988 that the decision rendered by the RCS was without giving them a hearing. Accordingly, he allowed the revision petition and remanded the dispute for reconsideration by the RCS. A review petition filed by the Petitioner society was rejected on 18th January, 1989. 4. On remand, the RCS passed an order dated 27th September, 1989 holding that the Respondents before us could not produce any documentary material to show that they were residents of Delhi. As regards the others, the RCS concluded that their membership from the Petitioner society had been incorrectly ceased. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the Respondents preferred a revision petition before the Lieutenant Governor and contended that all the necessary documents were produced before the RCS but he had not taken them into consideration. Photocopies of the relevant documents were submitted before the Lieutenant Governor. The departmental representative did not produce the relevant file of the RCS on which reliance was placed on the ground that it had been seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). He submitted that the RCS would look into the claim of the Respondents afresh in the light of the documents now produced. 6. The departmental representative did not produce the relevant file of the RCS on which reliance was placed on the ground that it had been seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). He submitted that the RCS would look into the claim of the Respondents afresh in the light of the documents now produced. 6. In view of this, by similar orders dated 7th and 22nd April, 1993 the Lieutenant Governor again remanded the case to the RCS to examine the claim of the Respondents in terms of the documents that they may like to produce. .7. On remand, the RCS gave an opportunity to the Petitioner society to show that the Respondents were not residents of Delhi at the relevant time, but it was unable to do so. On the other hand, the Respondents individually produced documents to show that they were residents of Delhi at the relevant time. Since there are a large number of Respondents in this case, we are not indicating the documents filed by each of them. Suffice it to say, that each one of the Respondents produced more than one document in support of his or her case. It may also be mentioned at this stage that the relevant file of the RCS/Petitioner society allegedly seized by the CBI was not produced before any of the statutory authorities. In fact, it appears that the file was not seized by the CBI because the seizure memo of the CBI does not indicate that this particular file was seized or was otherwise with the CBI. There is, therefore, no reason why the relevant file relied on by the RCS/Petitioner society was not made available during the adjudicatory process. 8. What is also of importance is that on 16th December, 1992 the RCS issued a circular dispensing with the requirement of proof of residence in Delhi for members of cooperative group housing societies. A copy of this circular was given to the federation of group housing societies for being passed on to the member societies. Further, to give effect to this circular, a direction was issued requiring deletion of Clause 5(1)(a) of the Bye-laws of the cooperative group housing societies to the effect that a person ought to be a resident of Delhi for enrolment as a member of a group housing society. 9. Further, to give effect to this circular, a direction was issued requiring deletion of Clause 5(1)(a) of the Bye-laws of the cooperative group housing societies to the effect that a person ought to be a resident of Delhi for enrolment as a member of a group housing society. 9. The circular dated 16th December, 1992 is not on our record in this case but it is filed in the connected writ petition being WP (C) No. 5398 of 1997. The circular reads as follows: OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR: COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES: DELHI ADMN. OLD COURTS BUILDING: PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001. No. F. 47/OGH/Coop/92/5849 of 5900 Dated: 16.12.1992 CIRCULAR It has been decided by the Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi to discontinue the requirement of proof of residence for membership of cooperative group housing societies with immediate effect. The cases which have been detained only on account of this reason may be examined in the light of these orders. In future the requirement of proof of residence in Delhi for clearance of membership of cooperative group housing societies will not be insisted upon. A separate action is being taken to advice all the cooperative group housing societies to amend the relevant bye-laws accordingly. (S.M.S CHAUDHARY) Registrar, Coop. Societies 10. It was submitted by the Petitioner society before the RCS that the circular did not have retrospective effect. This submission was rejected by the RCS holding that the circular has to be given effect to since the cases are still pending final adjudication. Accordingly, taking all necessary facts into consideration, by an order dated 15th June, 1994 the RCS held that the cessation of membership of the Respondents was not in order. He, therefore, did not approve the cessation of their membership and concluded that they were still members of the Petitioner society. .11. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner society preferred a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. By the impugned order dated 20th September, 1994 the revision petition was dismissed. 12. Before us, it was vaguely submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner society that the Respondents were not residents of Delhi at the relevant time. In our view, it is not open for the Petitioner society to raise such a contention. There are several reasons for it: Firstly, the complaint about the Respondents not being residents of Delhi was not made by the Petitioner society. In our view, it is not open for the Petitioner society to raise such a contention. There are several reasons for it: Firstly, the complaint about the Respondents not being residents of Delhi was not made by the Petitioner society. It seems that complaints had been made by other members that some members of the Petitioner society were not residents of Delhi and had submitted false affidavits in this regard. Consequently, an inquiry officer was appointed to conduct an inquiry under the provisions of Rule 55 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973. The inquiry officer submitted an ex parte report and it is on the basis of this ex parte report that the membership of the Respondents was ceased. This has been noted by the Lieutenant Governor in his order dated 9th December, 1988. Secondly, despite an opportunity having been given, neither the Petitioner society nor the departmental representative could adduce any evidence to show that the Respondents were not residents of Delhi at the relevant time. Thirdly, the file that they were relying on is missing and has not been produced before any statutory authority till date. An adverse inference is required to be drawn against the RCS/Petitioner society for non-production of the relevant file. On the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation mentioned in an ex parte report, the membership of the Respondents could not have been ceased by the RCS. Fourthly, the Respondents produced documentary evidence in support of their claim that they were residents of Delhi and that evidence was not controverted by the Petitioner society. Clearly, therefore, on facts it must be held that in the absence of anything to the contrary, the Respondents were residents of Delhi at the relevant time. 13. We have gone into this factual aspect for the reason that it was vaguely argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioner society. Moreover, we find that the dispute is over 28 years old and has been through three rounds of revision. We feel that a time has come when the dispute must terminate one way or the other. We also find that no material adverse to the Respondents has been produced before any of the statutory authorities, while the Respondents have produced material favourable to them. Taking all this into account, we have looked into the factual aspect of the matter. .14. We also find that no material adverse to the Respondents has been produced before any of the statutory authorities, while the Respondents have produced material favourable to them. Taking all this into account, we have looked into the factual aspect of the matter. .14. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner society then submitted that the circular dated 16th December, 1992 cannot have retrospective effect. In our opinion, the question of retrospectivity does not arise in this case. The circular merely states that those cases "detained" to enable a member of a cooperative group housing society to provide proof of residence, may now be examined in the light of the Delhi Governments decision to discontinue the necessity of proving residence in Delhi. In other words, the circular would be applicable only to those cases that had not yet attained finality. There is no doubt, and indeed there cannot be any doubt in this regard, that the cases of the Respondents had not yet attained finality. In fact, their cases were pending and were in the process of being adjudicated by the RCS. That being the position, the RCS was bound to give effect to the circular dated 16th December, 1992 and proceed on the basis that it was no longer obligatory for the Respondents to adduce proof of their residence in Delhi. Notwithstanding this, the Respondents did produce supporting evidence and that was not controverted by the Petitioner society. The question of retrospectivity would arise only if those cases that had attained finality were sought to be reopened on the basis of the circular dated 16th December, 1992 but since that is not the situation before us, the issue of its retrospective operation does not at all arise for consideration. All that the statutory authorities have done is to apply the circular as it is to the cases before them. They have not re-opened any closed case. 15. Under the circumstances, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to 18 are held to be continuing as members of the Petitioner society at all relevant times and the cessation of their membership is held to be not sustainable in law. Petition dismissed.