Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Mukta Gupta and Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ., observed that Court cannot assume the duties of the Administrator or the Executive Committee to address the day-to-day grievances.
The petitioner had filed the writ petition for issuance of direction or order to not deprive and violate the fundamental right of the petitioner, to live with dignity and mental peace and not to disrupt the supply of basic needs and essential services and for uninterrupted ingress and egress to his residence in the society complex, and further maintain rule of law.
Factual Background
The petitioner was residing in the co-operative Group Housing Society having 120 members. The said members were allotted dwelling apartments and the Society was managed by respondent 2.
The claim of the petition was that he had an abode in the Society and was suffering from constant deprivation and gross infringement of his right to enjoy the property. Further, he had been deprived of basic services and a dedicated car parking inside the Society as part of the Group Housing Scheme under the DCS Act.
The petitioner approached the appropriate legal forum, and an award was passed directing respondent 2 to provide one dedicated earmarked car parking for each member of the Society and also to remove illegal occupants from the parking area under the stilt of the building.
Analysis and Decision
One of the grievances of the petitioner was that his demarcated car parking had been occupied by the unauthorized occupants and despite the Award, the earmarked car parking was not being restored to him. However, it was his own assertion that he had applied for execution of the Award in which necessary direction had been issued.
The Bench expressed that, this Court cannot assume the duties of the Administrator or the Executive Committee to address the day-to-day grievances of the petitioner.
Further, it was claimed by the petitioner that he was not getting free access to the lift and enjoyment of the common facilities and amenities.
High Court stated that, the allegations made were general, vague and lacked specific details.
Lastly, the Bench concluded that the grievances of the petitioner were general and essentially about the efficiency of services which had to be agitated by the petitioner within the mechanism as provided under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003.
There was no merit in the present petition. [D S Kundu v. Registrar, Co-op Societies Delhi Old Court Building; 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1499; decided on 20-5-2022]
Advocates before the Court:
For the Petitioner: Petitioner-in-person
For the Respondents: Ms Sanjana Nangia Advocate for Mr Sameer Vashisht, Additional Standing Counsel for GNCTD.
