Over-Crowding in the Club
Ref MOM of RWA EC DT 30.12.24, at Point 4, Club Matters, it has been stated that: “Issues discussed in half-yearly meeting have been sent to the Club to look into.” This clearly shows that the RWA EC is neither concerned nor has any interest whatsoever on the issues raised in the meeting.
I had stated in the meeting that Club 15A, though called residential club of 15A but in fact at any time approx. 70% or more non-residents are noticed in the Club, using its facilities, resulting in overcrowding in the Club (often seat is available either in the Bar or the Dining Room etc.). Still, all the CMC is interested in is to continue to enrol new non-resident members in the Club, ignoring the fact that there are more than a hundred non-resident members without voting rights. The idea behind restricting membership of non-resident members to 421 was to automatically reduce non-resident members, thereby making it purely a residential Club.
I am sorry to say that all CMC or RWA ECs have taken various decisions which resulted in continuous enrolment of non-resident members in Club. I wish residents are aware that more than hundred non-residents have been made PUC (Persons Using Club facilities) & still continuing at the cost of residential environment, security & other issues.
I sincerely feel strong measures/actions need to be taken by the CMC and the RWA EC should scrutinise the actions/stand taken by its President & Secretary in CMC meetings.
I request my fellow residents to kindly spare some time to think about the on-going Club actions pertaining to use of our Club by non-residents, thereby reducing the residential Club to a cheap eatery & pub at the cost of residents.
Sadhna (9810338360) reacted to KN Bansal’s thoughts: Almost all the residents feel the same way. I think some constitutional amendments need to be made in the next AGM with regard to the people who have sold their homes and still hold the Club membership leading to this situation. Granting of the new membership too should be stopped with immediate effect. The new rules should be carved out soon.
Bansal KN: I feel no constitutional changes are required to achieve the residential character of Club but only sincerity towards the goal is required. The main problem is not of ex-owners of plots of this Sector who have now moved out of the Sector, but is 1) illegally making more than hundred non-residents as PUC members; 2) transferring the membership to their children; 3) illegally giving memberships to non-residents to keep the no. 421 (this no. otherwise should have been continuously reducing) and 4) giving temporary membership to more than 150 non-residents etc.
Anshuman Aggarwal (9871645332) said: this should be the primary focus of the next RWA election. It benefits no resident to have the Club over-populated by Non-residents. So, one would assume that anyone willing to take a strong stand on this will win unopposed
A PUC Member reacted: As a PUC member of an ex-owner who is still living in the Sector, I’d like to know what problem specifically you have with me using the Club?
I’d also like to remind you, that many of those ex-owners are founding members of the Club, without whom you would have Sundar Lal’s jhuggi, a cement tennis court and a barren field where the Club currently stands.
Sanjeev Sareen Clarified: the Constitution allows the Residents who sell houses to retain their Membership. Their status will be shifted to Non-Resident Membership.
Bansal KN: I moved to this Sector in the year 1999 and on observing that memberships are increasingly being given to non-residents, I continuously raised the issue of residential character of Club in almost all meetings of RWA & Club. Many senior residents will recall that initially I was even not allowed to speak on Club matters in the RWA half-yearly & AGMs. With the support of respected residents, the non-resident membership was further stopped with the assurance that their nos. will automatically will come down. At that time the number of non-residents members were 421, various CMC’s manipulated it as we are bound to keep 421 non-resident members.
Sanjeev Sareen: PUC Memberships were given after detailed discussions and the approval of the AGM as a way out to make resident children Members of the Club once they attain 24 years of age. The Constitution allowed resident permanent membership to be given ONLY to owners of houses/ flats. Resident & Non-Resident PUC Memberships were given after the attempts to amend the Constitution to allow resident children become members failed. Resident Club Members were upset that their children over 24 years had to be signed as guests.
The General body approved all these decisions and Mr Bansal, if I am correct, you were also part of that AGM and subsequent AGMs which approved the Minutes with details of PUC Memberships.
Maybe Constitution & AGM Minutes can be referred to for better understanding
Sanjeev Sareen: 2 out-of-turn permanent Memberships to children of Non-Resident CMC Members was given last year after the RWA Secretary (Rajesh Khanna) voted in their favour and in a voting tie the President (DD Mishra) used his casting vote to make Non-Resident children Permanent Members under pressure from Non-resident CMC members.
This was against the strong protest lodged by 04 Resident Members.
Mr Sudipto was a member of the Admissions Committee and can clarify further.
Mr Bansal, you were well aware of this but did not take it up in the AGM, asking why the RWA Secretary voted against the residents to make children of non-resident CMC Members Permanent Members.
Let residents know the correct facts and minutes of this meeting can be shared to clarify facts.
