vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4795 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.4795 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.4795 OF 2005 Paramount Co.op. Housing Society Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. Shri Kiran Sonawane Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.R.V. Govilkar for Petitioner Mr.S.V. Pitre for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 20, 2008 OCTOBER 20, 2008 OCTOBER 20, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This petition has been filed against the dismissal of the revision application filed by the petitioner against the order passed on 2.3.2001 by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pune City (2), Pune. By this order, the Deputy Registrar had allowed application No.2 of 1999 and had declared Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein as deemed members of the petitioner society from the date of the order. The petitioner society was directed to transfer the shares in favour of Respondent No.2. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner society approached the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pune division who has upheld the order passed by the Deputy Registrar. : 2 : 2. The contention of the petitioner society that respondent Nos.2 and 3 were not eligible to become members of the society in view of the fact that the original members had not transferred the shares to them has not been accepted by the Divisional Joint Registrar. He has observed that the petitioner society had issued a no objection certificate for the transfer and that the society had received an amount of Rs.25,000/- as transfer charges on 14.9.1997. Late fee and premium and other dues of maintainance, etc. have also been cleared by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are residing in the premises from 1997. 3. The grievance today of the society is that the power of attorney executed by M.A. Balani and Mrs.R.A. Balani who were the original members of the society and who sold their flat to Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3, cannot be accepted as there appears to be some overwriting on the signature appended to the power of attorney. All these contentions have been raised before the Deputy Registrar and the Divisional Joint Registrar who have negatived them. In my view, when two authorities below have taken concurrent findings of facts, there is no need for me to interfere with the orders in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Petition rejected. : 3 : 5. The petitioner society shall comply with the orders of the Deputy Registrar of issuance of share certificates within a period of two weeks from today. All the demands made on Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in respect of maintainance charges on the basis that they are not members of the Petitioner society should be withdrawn by the society.