Hima Kohli, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association Multi State Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. (in short referred to as `the Society),through Mr. K.C. Bajaj, impugning inter alias the order dated 10.2.2006, passed by the respondent No. 1, Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies holding that the representation dated 20.10.2005, received from respondents No. 2 to 6, members of the petitioner society to the effect that the elections held on 19.10.2005, to the Members of the Board of Directors of the society was conducted in contravention of the Act be admitted as an election dispute filed under Section 84(1) of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (in short referred to as `the Act') and appointing an Arbitrator to settle the disputes inter se respondents No. 2 to 6 and the petitioner society, as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 84 of the Act. Along with the writ petition, an interim application was also filed, seeking stay of the order dated 10.2.2006 passed by respondent No. 1.
2. A perusal of the aforementioned writ petition reflects that the same has been signed by Mr. K.C. Bajaj, in his capacity as the Chairman of the petitioner society and is supported by his affidavit. He has stated in the affidavit that the petition has been drafted under his instructions. Accompanying the writ petition, is an extract of a resolution dated 22.2.2006, issued on the letterhead of the society by its CEO, resolving that Sh. K.C. Bajaj, Chairman, is authorised to file the writ petition against the order dated 10.2.2006, passed by the respondent No. 1 and to take all necessary steps for filing and prosecuting the said writ petition. Vide order dated 13.3.2006, notice on the writ petition as also the interim application was issued for 25.08.2006 and in the meantime, the aforesaid order dated 10.2.2006, passed by respondent No. 1 was stayed till the next date of hearing.
3. On 25th August, 2006, after hearing the parties, we were of the opinion that the matter was required to be resolved through the process of mediation. Accordingly, Mr. P.H. Parekh, former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (in short referred to as `the SCBA'), was appointed as a Mediator so as to discuss the matter with the present executive committee of the SCBA, parties to the present petition and their respective counsels and all others who were required to be consulted for arriving at an amicable settlement. The learned Mediator was requested to submit his report within three weeks and the matter was posted for hearing on 27th September, 2006 while continuing the interim order passed on 13.3.2006.
4. In the meantime, an application being CM No. 11896/2006 was filed on behalf of the SCBA through its Hony. Secretary. In the said application, it was averred by the applicant that it had a strength of 6000 lawyers and it had constituted a Multi State Co-operative Group Housing Society, the petitioner herein to secure lands in Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana for meeting the needs of residential accommodation of its members; that from the very beginning, it was found that there were inter se disputes between the Directors of the petitioner society causing a lot of confusion and bitter quarrels between the members of the Board of Directors as also the members of the petitioner society, thus jeopardizing the interest of the members of the society, particularly those who had deposited amounts to the tune of about Rs. 6 lacs each in the project. It was also submitted that as per Clause 10 of the Bye-laws of the petitioner society, only such advocates who are members of the SCBA and residing within the area of operation of the petitioner society, namely, States of Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh could be admitted as ordinary members, subject to the condition that he/she should be competent to contract under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The applicant submitted that as it was the parent body of the petitioner society, there was a popular demand amongst its members to intervene in the present petition and halt the on-going confusion and conflict. Accordingly, an urgent executive committee meeting of SCBA was held on 1.8.2006, to request Sh. K.C. Bajaj not to hold the General Body Meeting of the petitioner society on 03.8.2006, and to hold a General Body Meeting with an improved agenda in co-operation with the other Directors, as a result of which, Sh. K.C. Bajaj withdrew his notice. Subsequently, two requisitions were moved by 888 members of the petitioner society and by 170 members of the SCBA to remove 5 Directors from the Board of Directors as also from the primary membership of the SCBA. It was stated that as the Special General Body Meeting of the petitioner society was not being convened, the executive committee of the applicant, namely, the SCBA called for its own Special General Body Meeting on 15th September, 2006. The Special General Body Meeting held on 15.9.2006, was stated to have been attended by 673 members including the aforesaid five Directors of the petitioner society, namely, Mr. Vikas Bansal, Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. J.N.S. Tyagi, Mr. Baldev Atrey and Chaudhary Shamshuddin Khan. It was submitted that seven resolutions were passed on the said date calling for amending the Bye laws of the petitioner society, thereby expanding the strength of the board of Directors from 7 to 21, requesting the present 7 members of the Board of Directors of the petitioner society to demit office and expelling the aforesaid 5 Directors of the petitioner society from the primary membership of the applicant, namely, the SCBA, and holding fresh elections for electing 21 members of the Board of Directors, under supervision of a retired Judge of the High Court to be appointed by this Court.
5. Amongst other reliefs sought in the aforesaid application, one of the reliefs is for impleadment of the SCBA as a party to the writ petition, as also for issuing directions to the petitioner society for holding a special General Body Meeting under the supervision of a retired judge of the High Court. The said application came up for consideration before us on 25th September, 2006, on which date, notice was issued to the non-applicants for 27th September, 2006 and it was also ordered that the bank account of the petitioner society was not to be operated by any party.
6. In the meantime, efforts were made by Mr. Parekh, the learned Mediator, appointed by this Court to resolve the issues relating to the petitioner society after hearing all the parties to the writ petition, including the President of the SCBA. As per his report dated 24.9.2006, Mr. Parekh submitted that he had called a number of meetings between the parties on various dates, i.e., 1st September, 2006, 11th September, 2006 and 13th September, 2006 but despite his best efforts to resolve the disputes and offer various possible solutions, no consensus could be arrived at between the parties and it was clear that negotiated settlement was not possible.
7. When the matter was listed before us on 27.9.2006, we found that a fresh application, being CM No. 12156/2006 has been filed praying inter alias for permission to withdraw the writ petition. The said application has been signed by Sh. S.K. Bansal and an affidavit in support thereof has also been filed by him. The affidavit states that Sh. Bansal has preferred the accompanying application in his capacity as the Chairman of the petitioner society. A copy of the resignation letter dated 21.7.2006 stated to be issued by Sh. K.C. Bajaj and copy of an order dated 25th September, 2006, passed by the learned Arbitrator appointed by respondent No. 1, Central Registrar on a petition filed by Sh. K.C. Bajaj under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for restraining Sh. Bansal, advocate from functioning as the Chairman of the petitioner society were also annexed with the application. We also find from the records that a resolution dated 21.8.2006, has been extracted on the letterhead of the petitioner society under the signatures of its CEO resolving that Sh. S.K. Bansal, the Chairman is authorised to prosecute the present writ petition on behalf of the petitioner society and take all necessary steps in this regard. The said resolution and a vakalatnama executed in favor of Sh. Rakesh Tiku, advocate appearing for the applicant in CM No. 12156/2006 has been filed under an index dated 23.9.2006.
8. In the aforesaid application, the applicant has stated that a separate suit has been filed on the Original Side of this Court by the petitioner society and the affected office bearers, namely, Sh. S.K. Bansal, Sh. J.N. S. Tyagi, Mr. Baldev Atrey and Choudhary Shamshuddin praying inter alias for a decree of declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction etc. for holding the meeting as also the resolution of the General Body Meeting of the SCBA, defendant therein on 15.9.2006, as illegal & unlawful and declaring the plaintiffs therein to continue to be members of the defendant association as also for injuncting the defendant association from acting upon its seven resolutions passed on 15.9.2006 and for returning and resorting the records etc. of the society forthwith. A copy of the plaint, interim application and the supporting documents filed in the aforesaid suit registered on the Original Side of this Court, registered as CS (OS) No. 1831/2006, entitled 'SCBA Multi State Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. v. SCBA ' has been handed over to us during the course of the arguments. We have also been handed over a copy of an ex-parte order dated 26.9.2006, passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid suit which is reproduced herein below:
26.9.2006.
Present : Mr. Rakesh Tiku for plaintiff.
CS (OS) No. 1831/2006
Summons be issued to the defendant returnable for 24.11.2006.
IA No. 10764/2006
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
IA No. 10763/2006
Notice returnable for 24.11.2006.
Extra constitutional authorities and pressure group from outside have to be injuncted. Prima facie defendant cannot exert a pressure upon the plaintiff or its members to follow a pre-determined course of action.
Till the present order is vacated or modified, their shall operate against the defendant and it's office bearers an injunction in terms of para C of I.A. No. 10763/2006.
9. Sh. Rakesh Tiku, counsel for the applicant has submitted that the petitioner society will take its chance before the Arbitrator and plead its case on merits and in case of any grievance against the order passed by the learned Arbitrator, seek its remedy as per law. Hence, it is stated that the present petition may be permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner society.
10. We also find that during the pendency of the present proceedings, yet another round of arbitration proceedings have been initiated by Sh. K.C. Bajaj and Ms. Hema Sahu, against the petitioner society, to restrain Sh. S.K. Bansal from functioning as the Chairman of the petitioner society. The said petition is pending before the learned Arbitrator and vide order dated 25.9.2006, an interim application filed under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, has been rejected being devoid of merits.
11. We have heard the submissions of all the parties and also perused the report of the learned Mediator. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances that have emerged from the records, and in the course of arguments, there is not doubt that there is a bitter inter se quarrel not only between the two groups of the Directors of the petitioner society, 5 Directors being on one side and two being on the other side, but there is also a conflict of interest between various factions of the members of the petitioner society. The SCBA, which represents itself to be the parent body of the petitioner society has also expressed its lack of trust in the present Board of Directors of the petitioner society and claims to be an interested party in view of the fact that out of its strength of 6000 members, about 3200 members are also the members of the petitioner society, whose interests are being adversely affected.
12. At this stage what emerges is that as per Clause 10 of the Bye laws of the society, a person has to be a primary member of the SCBA to be entitled to be a member of the petitioner society. Hence all the members of the petitioner society are automatically the members of the SCBA. A perusal of the bye laws of the petitioner society also reflects that the same has been promoted by the Chief Promoter who was at a relevant time, the President of the SCBA. The place of business and the registered office of the petitioner society is also situated at the SCBA Office within the Supreme Court Compound. For the said reason, we find that the applicant SCBA is a necessary and proper party in the present proceedings and ought to be imp leaded as a respondent in the writ petition. Hence the application for impleadment filed by the SCBA is allowed. The petitioner is directed to file the amended memo of parties including the name of SCBA in the present proceedings within two weeks.
13. There have been allegations and counter allegations leveled by various parties against each other, claiming that each group wanted to grab the petitioner society and misuse the funds deposited with the petitioner society by various members. It is also manifest that there is complete distrust between the various factions and as is apparent on a perusal of the report filed by the learned Mediator, the matter has escalated to the point that there does not seem to be any likelihood of a negotiated settlement inter se the members. As a result of the recent Extraordinary General Body Meeting called by the SCBA and held on 15.9.2006, expelling 5 members who were Directors of the petitioner society, from its primary membership and in view of the said adversely affected 5 Directors instituting a suit against the SCBA on the original side of this Court, there has been further escalation of bitterness and quarrels inter se the members of both, the petitioner society and of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
14. A number of disputes have arisen in the present matter. Both the factions, namely, one led by Sh.K.C. Bajaj and the other by Sh. S.K. Bansal, claim to be entitled to represent the petitioner society before us. While one group is pressing the writ petition, the other wants to withdraw the same. While one group claims that they have got possession of the plot of land allotted to the petitioner society by NOIDA, the other group alleges that they obtained possession of the plot on another date. The SCBA has stated in its application that there is also a dispute about the exact location of the plot of land allotted. While in the original map given by NOIDA, the plot is shown in Sector 99, on the Expressway itself, the map relied on by the group of 5 Directors on the Board of the petitioner society shows the plot as located in Sector 97.
15. In the course of arguments addressed by all the concerned parties before us on 27th September, 2006, we endeavored to bring the parties to some negotiated settlement through their respective counsels, for which purpose, at the request of the parties and their respective counsels, we adjourned the matter to the post lunch session to enable them to put their heads together and thrash out the issues and come forward with a joint application. However, even in the post lunch session, we found the parties were still at loggerheads with each other. In fact, while the applicants of CM No. 12156/2006 submitted a two pages note stated to be the agreed terms between the parties, the applicants of CM No. 118961/2006, i.e. the SCBA disputed the same and said that they had not agreed to the terms contained in the said document. Later on under index dated 29.9.2006, the SCBA submitted a one page note containing their suggestions. In fact, whether or not permission should be granted to withdraw the petition itself has become a matter of controversy.
16. In this view of the matter and in the larger interest of the members of the petitioner society who have contributed their hard earned money in the society in the hope of being allotted residential accommodation, as also to bring a quietus to the on going conflict inter se the members of the Board of Directors of the society who have lost trust in each other and in whom a large number of members appears to have lost confidence, we deem it just, fit and appropriate to appoint and nominate Ms. Justice Usha Mehra (Retd) as a Court Administrator who shall take the following steps:
(i) The administration of the petitioner society shall be taken over by the Court Administrator with immediate effect;
(ii) All the Bank Accounts of the petitioner society shall be operated exclusively by the Court Administrator and until further orders;
(iii) All the records of the petitioner society shall be handed over by all the concerned parties to her;
(iv) The Court Administrator shall also get the accounts of the petitioner society updated and audited. On detection of any irregularity in the funds, appropriate steps for recovery as deemed fit and proper shall and could be taken by the Court Administrator.
(v) A list of valid members of the petitioner society shall be prepared by her, after going through the records. For the purposes of preparing such a list of valid members, the Court Administrator shall verify the up-to-date payments made by all the members and declare such members as defaulters who have failed to pay the Installments, after following due process of law;
(vi) Since there are claims and counter claims with regard to the elections held and vacation of posts of Directors by some of the members, we deem it appropriate to order for holding a fresh election of the Board of Directors as per law, upon preparation of list of valid members. Such election shall be conducted under overall supervision of the Court Administrator. The date for conducting the elections shall be fixed by the Court Administrator. The elections shall be conducted by secret ballot.
(vii) A General Body Meeting shall also be convened by the Court Administrator, the agenda of which shall be finalised after holding consultations with the parties. It is, however, ordered that one of the items of such agenda shall be as to whether or not the number of Directors of the petitioner society should be increased up to 15/21 from the present strength of seven.
(viii) There are allegations made in some of the pleadings filed before us that originally the land which was allotted to the petitioner society was located near the Express Highway in Sector 99, Noida, which got later on changed to Sector 97. In this view of the matter, the Court Administrator shall also hold an enquiry as to whether there was really any change in the location of plot of land allotted by NOIDA to the petitioner society. If she has a reasonable apprehension to believe that there were certain unauthorised changes made, she will get the matter enquired into through the Commissioner of the concerned Division and obtain a report from him in respect of the aforesaid matter also. If it is found that there are certain changes made to the detriment of the interest of the members of the petitioner society and without the knowledge of the society, in that event, she shall proceed to take appropriate action in the matter in this regard.
(ix) The Court Administrator shall discharge all the functions and duties of the regular Board of Directors till the newly elected Board of Directors takes charge.
17. For the purpose of carrying out the aforementioned directions passed by us, the learned Court Administrator shall be provided necessary secretarial services by the petitioner society. All the parties in the present petition shall also render necessary co-operation to the learned Court Administrator. Insofar as the remuneration of the Court Administrator is concerned, we leave it to her to fix her remuneration after holding discussions with and consulting all the parties.
18. During the course of submissions, some of the parties were also suggesting that we should also issue a direction to the SCBA to reconsider their decision regarding expulsion of five members who were Directors of the petitioner society. As noted earlier in this order, during the course of said submissions, it was also brought to our notice that a suit is already filed by the said expelled members in this Court which is registered as CS (OS) No. 1831/2006 and in which some order of injunction has been issued by the learned Single Judge. Since the same is subjudice and is a subject matter of a separate suit, we are not inclined to pass any order in respect of the same in these proceedings. It shall be open to the parties to obtain any such order which is sought to be obtained here, from the learned Single Judge.
19. In view of the order passed today, the application being CM No. 11896/2006 seeking for intervention by the SCBA, is disposed of. The application filed by Sh. S.K. Bansal is kept pending for consideration. The same shall be considered along with the main petition and the stay application which shall be considered after parties file their respective replies/rejoinders to the writ petition and the pending applications. An amended memo of parties be filed by the petitioner within two weeks. The learned Court Administrator shall file a status report within one month.
20. List for consideration on 14th November, 2006.
21. A copy of this order be given dusty to counsels for the parties and be also forwarded by the Registry to the learned Court Administrator forthwith for taking appropriate steps in the matter.