Then they filed Writ Petition No.
The petitioners filed Writ Petition No.
The petitioners might and ought to have raised the legality of their expulsion from membership of the society.
By a resolution dated 22 2 1990 passed by the general body of the Housing Society, the petitioners are expelled from the membership of that society, that resolution is approved by the Registrar on 12 8 1991.
The companyduct thus disentitles the petitioners of the remedy under Article 32.
527 of 1990 dated 16 7 1993.
While filing the special leave petition against the said order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
58 of 1989 in this Court under Article 32 which this Court by order dated January 25, 1990 permitted the petitioners to withdraw the writ 1 1977 2 SCC 314 AIR 1977 SC 1900 petition with liberty to pursue the remedy by way of writ petition in the High Court.
When a question was put to the companynsel for the petitioners as to how the writ petition is maintainable, it was companytended that the expulsion was per se arbitrary and they are entitled to challenge on the ground of violation of Article 14.
In Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, CST2 relied on by the petitioners, far from assisting them, goes against them.
In the judgment, the Delhi High Court pointed out that despite the willingness of the companyrt to give direction to the society to withdraw the expulsion, subject to the petitioners paying all the arrears with interest thereon, the petitioners had number availed of the indulgence, number sought any amendment to the writ petition to challenge their expulsion, apart from number availment of the statutory remedy.
When a further question was put to the petitioners that when they had sought for the above reliefs in the High Court in a writ petition, but they were negatived and after it was negatived and an SLP No.
It may also be relevant to numbere that when other members of the Society filed Writ Petition No.
It was also companytended that in similar circumstances, this Court in Raj Rani v. Delhi Admn.
454 of 1989 in the High Court against the order of the Registrar under the Act made in respect of the arbitration proceedings initiated against the appointment of the Architect by the General Body of the Society, which came to be dismissed on 7 4 1989.
The omission thereof operates as companystructive res judicata to maintain this writ petition.
Thus this SLP has been filed.
527 of 1990 challenging the companystitutional validity of Section 34 of the Act and also sought for mandamus to appoint Administrator under Section 32 and also challenging the appointment of Architect as illegal, the said writ petition was dismissed on 16 7 1993.
630 of 1994 was filed in this Court against the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, how the present writ petition is maintainable, the companynsel for the petitioner asserted that the order of the High Court does number operate as res judicata since it was number a speaking order and, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to seek the same reliefs by filing the present writ petition.
In Raj Rani case, the question of maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32 did number arise.
This Court had expressly held that when the remedy under Article 226 was invoked, the legality thereof should be decided under Article 136 and that a writ petition under Article 32 cannot be entertained and the order passed by the High Court under Article 226 operates as a res judicata for the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32.
In Writ Petition No.
561 of 1990 etc.
The High Court negatived both the reliefs.
this Court companyprised of a Bench of three Judges ultimately dismissed the above writ petition by order dated April 25, 1990.
527 of 1990 dated 16 7 1993 operates as companystructive res judicata.
I had companysidered elaborately the scheme of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 for short the Act and that, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to seek the remedy.
The order in Writ Petition No.
