: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1931 OF 2006 Mrs.Olive Rodrigues ....Petitioner V/s. The Divisional Joint Registrar, . Co-Operative Societies & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.Chirag Balsara i/b Divya Shah Associates for the Petitioner. Mr.G.V. Murthi with Ms.Mamta Shah for Respondent Nos.5 and 6. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 17TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The Petitioner has challenged an order dated 18.5.2006 setting aside an order dated 22.6.2005 passed by the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies. 2. On 22.10.2003 Respondent No.3, the Administrator of the Catholic Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. entered the names of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the share certificates relating to plot No.174 in the said society. 3. Against the said order the Petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Registrar under : 2 : Section 25-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the said Act"). By an order dated 22.6.2005, the application was allowed and the decision of the Administrator was set aside. 4. Against the said order, Respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed a Revision Application in which the impugned order dated 18.5.2006 was passed setting aside the order dated 22.6.2005. 5. It is not necessary to refer to the contentions raised in the said application in detailed. Suffice it to note that the Petitioner claims to be the tenant in respect of the said flat. Respondent No.4 was the owner of the said plot. On 2.1.2003 Respondent No.4 allegedly assigned the same in favour of Respondent Nos.5 and 6. On 1.8.2003, Respondent No.3 was appointed as the Administrator of the said society, who as stated entered the names of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the share certificates pertaining to the said plot. 6. According to the Petitioner, the same is not permissible in law and void inter-alia on the ground that under the bye-laws of the society, only Roman Catholics are entitled to be members. It was further contended that an Administrator has no jurisdiction to : 3 : decide on the validity of the bye-laws. 7. The impugned order has set aside the order of the Assistant Registrar only on the ground that the Petitioner could have approached the Administrator or the Committee before filing an application under Section 25-A of the said Act. It is held that the Petitioner was not entitled to by-pass the said order and file the application without first applying to the Administrator. 8. There is nothing in the Act which prohibits or prevents the Applicant without first making an application to the society / managing committee of the society / Administrator of the society. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to maintain an application under Section 25-A or not is a different matter and I express no opinion as to whether the Petitioner has locus to do so. This aspect is not considered by this order. . In any event, it is clear that the Petitioner had in fact approached the Administrator in respect of her grievance. The Petitioner had addressed a letter dated 17.8.2004 to the Administrator. She expressly challenged his action of transferring the shares and invited his attention to the judgment of the Supreme : 4 : Court. Thus even on facts, the impugned order has proceeded on an incorrect basis. 9. In the circumstances, the impugned order is quashed and set-aside. The Divisional Joint Registrar shall hear the matter on merits. The matter is remanded to the Divisional Joint Registrar who shall hear the matter on merits. All the contentions including as to the maintainability and locus are kept open.