1 W.P.No.1318/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1318 OF 2010 Chairman/Secretary, Mahapalika Laghuvetan Karmachari Sahakari Gruhanirman Sanstha Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, senior advocate i/by Mr. R.A. Lokhande for the petitioner. Mr. Milind More, Assistant Government Pleader for State. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 12TH JULY, 2010 P.C. The petitioner-Co-operative Society has convened a Special General Body Meeting on 15th August, 2007 and at the said meeting, a resolution was passed for redevelopment of the property of the petitioner-society consisting of 17 buildings and 340 flats. According to the petitioner-society, the necessary procedure was followed and the committee was constituted for selection of the developer. According to the petitioner-society, they had decided to select a particular developer on 27th March, 2009 and a General Body Meeting was convened on 2 W.P.No.1318/10 19th April, 2009. The said meeting was postponed due to want of coram and again the next Special General Body meeting was scheduled to be held on 18th April, 2010. According to the petitioner-society, in the meeting held on 18th April, 2010, 165 members were present and many others who wanted to attend the meeting were not allowed to enter the place at the instance of the members who are opposing the redevelopment of the society. According to the petitioner, when the petitioner-society has taken further steps, the Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies, K- (East) Ward, Mumbai sent the impugned communication dated 26th April, 2010 in which the proceedings of the Special General Meeting of 18th April, 2010 were not approved on the ground that out of the total 340 members of the petitioner-society, 165 members, that is only 49% were present, and that there was no sufficient corum. The Deputy Registrar also placed reliance on clause 10(c) of the Government Resolution dated 3rd January, 2009 wherein it is provided that for Special General Body, 3/4th of the total number of members have to remain present. 2. The aforesaid decision is challenged by the petitioner-society firstly on the ground that the Government Resolution dated 3rd January, 2009 3 W.P.No.1318/10 could not have been applied to the meeting held on 18th April, 2010 because that meeting was pursuant to the process which had already commenced as far back as on 15th August, 2007. It is further submitted that merely because the other group of members did not allow the willing members of the petitioner-society to attend the meeting, that fact cannot be allowed to prove the case against the petitioner-society as the wrong-doers will get advantage of their own wrong. 3. On the other hand, the learned AGP has supported the impugned decision dated 26th April, 2010. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that without going into the merits of the challenge to the impugned decision dated 26th April, 2010, the petition can be disposed of by directing that the petitioner-society shall convene a Special General Meeting of the members of the petitioner-society under the supervision of the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, K- (East) Ward, Mumbai or his representative. In the first place, the Deputy Registrar or his representative shall satisfy himself that the notices of meeting to be convened are properly served on the members of the society and 4 W.P.No.1318/10 thereafter, the Deputy Registrar or his representative shall remain personally present at the meeting. 5. Whatever resolution is thereafter passed shall be communicated by the petitioner-society to the Deputy Registrar. It is clarified that all contentions raised in the petition are kept open. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner invites our attention to the order dated 23rd June, 2010 made on behalf of the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this court taking the view that the petitioners are required to pay the court fee stamp of Rs.42,515/-. Looking to the number of members of the petitioner-society, it is submitted that in order to get urgent circulation and to seek appropriate orders, the petitioner- society had no other alternative but to pay the said amount of court fee stamp. 7. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a registered co-operative society and a separate legal entity, capable of being sued and the petitioner-society is required to pay the court fee stamp on the basis of number of its members only as 5 W.P.No.1318/10 one entity, we refer the dispute to the Taxing Officer who shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within one month from today. 8. Petition is accordingly, disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.