Ladda 1 wp-2220-11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 2220 OF 2011. Mahesh R. Karna & ors. ...petitioners. Versus Daulat Nagar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. & ors. ...Respondents. ...... Mr D.S. Chandnani i/by M/s Lexim Associates, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr Rajesh S. Datar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mrs M. P. Thakur, Assistant Government Pleader, for the Respondent Nos. 7 and 8. CORAM: D.D.SINHA AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- 28th July, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 7 and 8. 2. Writ petition is directed against the order dated 18th February, 2011 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Thane (Herein after referred to as "Deputy Registrar") on the complaint / letter dated 16th November, 2010 submitted by the petitioners. The learned Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that respondent No. 1 -Daulat Nagar Co-operative Society, Thane (East) (herein after referred to as the Society ) is not “ ” Ladda 2 wp-2220-11.doc conducting the business of the Society as per the directives issued by the State Government vide Notification dated 3rd January, 2009. It is submitted that the Society has violated condition Nos. 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 of the directives. It is contended that the Notification has been issued by the State Government in view of certain complaints received from the Members against the Management of the Cooperative Housing Societies in which redevelopment of buildings is taking place. It is contended that Respondent No.1-Society has ignored the directives and, therefore, violated the norms / directives given by the State Government in the said Notification and, therefore, the petitioners submitted complaint before the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Thane. However, by the impugned order, dated 18th February, 2011, the Deputy Registrar did not take into consideration these aspects of the issue and permitted the Society to hold the meeting and pass appropriate resolution by majority of 75% of the Members those who have participated in the said meeting in respect of the redevelopment of the Society. The counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the order of the Deputy Registrar is bad in law, since the Society has not conducted affairs of the Society pertaining to redevelopment as per the directives given by the State Government vide Notification dated 3rd January, 2009, and hence the petitioners have filed the present petition for necessary directions. 3. So far as the preliminary objection raised by the respondent No.1 about maintainability of the petition is concerned, the counsel for the Ladda 3 wp-2220-11.doc petitioners have submitted that, even if there is alternate remedy available under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 that does not take away the power and jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In order to substantiate this contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Cannanore District Muslim Educational Association,Kanpur v. State of Kerala and others 2010 DGLS (Soft.)292. Counsel for Respondent No.1 has raised preliminary objection on the ground that there is alternate efficacious remedy available in the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 to the petitioners to challenge the order passed by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Thane. 4. The Counsel for the Respondent No.1 has submitted that process of redevelopment of the Society concerned commenced in the year 2004 and even now the Society shall take appropriate steps as per directions given by the State Government vide order dated 18th February, 2011. It is further contended that if the petitioners have grievance against the impugned order, without exhausting alternate remedy available in law invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore on this short ground petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 has submitted that there is alternate remedy available in law to the petitioners under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, Ladda 4 wp-2220-11.doc 1960. 6. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the counsel for the petitioners as well as Respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 7 and 8. 7. Perused the decision of the Apex Court as well as the Notification dated 3rd January, 2009. It is no doubt true that the State Government, in view of the complaints received from various Members against the Management of the Cooperative Societies in which redevelopment is taking place, has issued some directives vide Notification dated 3rd January, 2009. The petition is filed by the petitioners against the order dated 18th February, 2011 passed by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Thane on the complaint made by the petitioners dated 16th November, 2010. The copy of the complaint is not annexed by the petitioners with the present petition and in absence thereof it is difficult to know what exactly is the nature of the complaint filed by the petitioners before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies as well as nature of grievance of the petitioners. The State Government vide notification, dated 3rd January, 2009, issued directives pertaining to the redevelopment of the buildings of the Cooperative Housing Societies. Clauses (1) to (5) and (7) to (10) of the said Notification read as under :- 0 1. The requisition for convening Special General Body Meeting for Redevelopment of the Society Building. Ladda 5 wp-2220-11.doc 1 2. Convening Special General Body Meeting, 2 3. To accept written suggestions from members relating to redevelopment of the building, 3 4. Decisions to be taken in the Special General Body Meeting. 4 5. ... 5 6. Issuing appointment letter to the Architect / Project Management Consultant. 6 7. Work to be done in the initial stage by Architect Project Management Consultant. 7 8. Action to be taken on receipt of redevelopment Project Report. 8 9. Preparation of list of Bids received; and 9 10. Selection of Developers. 10 However, there is no data before us to appreciate which are the violations alleged to have been committed by the Respondent No.1 -Society and in absence thereof, it is difficult to appreciate general contentions canvassed by the petitioners in this regard. 8. Similarly, the perusal of the impugned order shows that the Society was permitted by the Deputy Registrar, to hold the requisite meeting for considering the development process. The counsel for Respondent No.1 has submitted that process of development commenced in the year 2004 and, in absence of specific data, it is extremely difficult to consider the prayers of Ladda 6 wp-2220-11.doc the petitioners vis-a-vis action of respondent No.1 in the context of the Notification dated 3rd January, 2009. 9. There is no quarrel with the law declared by the Apex Court in the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners. However, the facts and circumstances involved in the present case if considered in its entirety then the said decision is of no help to the petitioners. It is no doubt true that the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is unfettered. However, the High Court should be slow in exercising the same, whenever there is alternate efficacious remedy available to the petitioners. 10. for the reasons stated herein above, no case is made out for showing indulgence. In the result, the Writ petition is dismissed. (D.D.SINHA J.) (A.R.JOSHI, J.)