1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5520 OF 2007 Smt.Reva Meheta .. Petitioner Versus The Principal Secretary, Coop. & Marketing Deptt., Mantralaya & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.V.Anturkar i/b. S.Deshmukh for petitioner Mr.Shyam Jagtiyani with A.R.Verma i/b. Tejpal & Co. for respondent No.4 Mr.S.K.Chinchlikar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr.Prantik Mujumdar with Mr.S.Jhon i/b. M.P.Savla & Co. for respondent No.5. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 27th February 2008 P.C. . This petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 30th October 2006 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of 2 Maharashtra in revision application. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the premises described in para 1 of the petition have been purchased by her and she is the owner of the flat/premises. The said flat is in a cooperative society which is respondent No.4 to this petition. The coop.society allegedly terminated the membership along with right to occupy with effect from 1st December 1975. The order of the society was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal and the order passed by the Dy.Registrar on 27th January 1996, according to the petitioner is in her favour. The society preferred a further appeal on 27th January 1996, according to the petitioner, to the Divisional Joint Registrar, who has passed an order thereon on 23rd September 1996 allowing the same. The petitioner preferred a revision application before the State of Maharashtra and the Revision Application, according to the petitioner, was 3 disposed on 9th March 1998 by the Principal Secretary holding that the issue between parties cannot be gone into and decided in the light of pending matters in the Coop.Court and the Small Causes Court. 3. Since the disputes were pending, according to petitioner, she did not approach the authority, but later on after the disputes were settled, she filed an application on 1st August 2003 before the concerned officer of the State of Government requesting him to pass appropriate orders on merits of the case. That request was rejected on 1st August 2003 by a communication dated 8th October 2003. A writ petition was filed against the communication of 8th October 2003 being W.P.No.1651 of 2004 and this Court directed the authority to dispose of the pending matter also considering the issue of maintainability. The petitioner was appearing in person and was not allegedly aware of the 4 technicality and, therefore, on issue of maintainability, she consulted her Advocate and took a written note from him which she forwarded to the authority. However, when the note was being forwarded on 15th November 2006, the petitioner was informed that the matter was already disposed of on 30th October 2006. It is, aggrieved by this order of 30th October 2006, which is annexure A-6 to the petition that the present petition has been filed. The Principal Secretary has observed that the Revisional Authority has exercised its powers on 9th March 1998 and confirmed the order of Divisional Joint Registrar which was appellate authority dated 23rd September 1996. The petitioner preferred an application on 9th January 2001 requesting the Revisional Authority to review its order. That was dismissed by the Revisional Authority on 12th June 2000. There is no provision of review against such orders. Yet, the petitioner proceeded in filing a Review petition. She was 5 informed that the Revisional order was passed by the Principal Secretary and no second revision would lie. Thus, aggrieved by this communication and dismissal of the application on the ground that it is not maintainable, that the present petition is filed. 4. An affidavit in reply has been filed by the society (respondent No.4) and the society has amongst other things pointed out that the flat was allotted to the petitioner as a tenant. She was in arrears and that is how the membership was terminated. However, the Deputy Registrar restored membership. The matter was carried in revision and the order of Dy.Registrar was set aside. The dispute filed in Coop.Court by the society was dismissed but at the same time, petitioner’s expulsion has been confirmed. In para 16 of the affidavit, there is a reference made to a chamber summons, which has been disposed of by this Court and other proceedings. 6 The society, therefore, takes a stand that the petitioner’s right to occupy the premises has been terminated and now the premises have been allotted to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) which has been impleaded as respondent No.5. 5. In my view, instead of resolving the controversy with regard to maintainability of the proceedings before the State Government considering the peculiar facts of the case and when a right to use and occupy an immovable property is involved, the remedy of the petitioner is not to pursue the proceedings before the authorities under Coop.Societies Act alone, viz., the appeals and revision but to assert such rights as are permissible in law with regard to the subject premises. In other words, the petitioner must demonstrate by approaching appropriate forum either under the MCS Act or a competent civil court and seek appropriate 7 declaration after impleading BPCL as well. It will not be possible to resolve the factual aspects and adjudicate upon the rights of the petitioner to occupy and use the subject property in the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similarly assuming that this Court rules in favour of the petitioner with regard to maintainability of the proceedings before Government, yet, the earlier order dated 9th March 1998 referring to some dispute which may be over but that authority, despite entertaining the revision application would not be able to adjudicate on disputed question of title and right to occupy the property. The petitioner will have to institute substantive proceedings and lead oral and documentary evidence in support of her pleas. That being impermissible in the limited jurisdiction, remedy of the petitioner is as above. 8 6. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)