Express approval and limited writ review govern expulsion resolutions under co-operative rules; deeming approval cannot be inferred.

Express approval was required before an expulsion resolution under Rule 36(3) could take effect; the six-month period did not create a deeming fiction, and courts could not add one or extend the rule by interpretation. The refusal to treat non-decision as approval therefore remained valid. In writ jurisdiction, the High Court could not reappreciate reasoned factual findings of the Registrar and the Financial Commissioner or sit in appellate review over them; certiorari lies only for jurisdictional error or an error apparent on the face of the record. The High Court's contrary interference was therefore held unwarranted, and the administrative refusal to approve the expulsion stood restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expulsion resolution could be treated as approved by deeming fiction if the Registrar did not decide it within six months under Rule 36(3) of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973; (ii) whether the High Court was justified in interfering in writ jurisdiction with the orders of the Registrar and the Financial Commissioner.

Issue (i): Whether the expulsion resolution could be treated as approved by deeming fiction if the Registrar did not decide it within six months under Rule 36(3) of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 1973.

Analysis: Rule 36(3) required the Registrar to consider the resolution, make the necessary enquiry, and communicate approval within six months. The provision contained no deeming clause that non-decision within that period would amount to approval. Approval by the statutory authority was mandatory before the resolution could take effect. Judicial creation of a deeming fiction was impermissible where the statute had not enacted one, and extending the six-month period to one year would amount to rewriting the rule.

Conclusion: The resolution could not be deemed approved on expiry of six months and remained ineffective without express approval.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in interfering in writ jurisdiction with the orders of the Registrar and the Financial Commissioner.

Analysis: The Registrar and the Financial Commissioner had recorded factual findings against approval of the expulsion and the revisional authority had concurred. The High Court did not meet those reasons, proceeded on delay and laches that were not the subject of the later challenge, and in substance revisited issues already dealt with earlier. A writ of certiorari is supervisory and requires an error apparent on the face of the record or jurisdictional infirmity, not appellate reappreciation. The High Court also failed to observe the discipline that binds a coordinate bench to follow an earlier coordinate decision or refer the matter to a larger bench.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unwarranted and unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The statutory authorities' refusal to approve the expulsion stood restored, and the challenge to the High Court's contrary interference succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires express approval of a proposed resolution, courts cannot infer deeming approval or enlarge the statutory time limit by interpretation, and writ jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for appellate reappraisal of reasoned administrative findings.

---