1 wp7911.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7911 OF 2010 Pujya Ratnakar Swami Co-operative Collective Farming Society ltd., ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- The Assistant Registrar and others ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr.S.J. Jaigude holding for Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. A.G. Magare, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 to 6 and 8 to 15. Mr. Chaudhari holding for Mr. M.S. Sonawane, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 7. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 7TH APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Advocates Mr. S.J. Jaigude holding for Mr. C.K. Shinde for petitioner and Mr. Magare for respondent nos. 4 to 6 and 8 to 15, Advocate Mr. Chaudhari holding for Mr. Sonawane for respondent nos. 3 and 7 and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Challenge is to order passed by Divisional Joint Registrar dated 29th July, 2010 dismissing the Revision filed by the present petitioner. Revision was directed against the orders of Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies directing the petitioner to enroll 2 wp7911.10 the applicants before it as members of petitioner-co-operative society. 2. Learned Counsel for petitioner has contended that the petitioner had not applied to society at any point of time and hence it was necessary for the Assistant Registrar to forward their applications with relevant documents for scrutiny to society as per the scheme of Section 23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. He further contends that four of them are holding lands and therefore, not eligible to become members. 3. Advocates Mr. Magare, Mr. Chaudhari and learned A.G.P. are supporting the impugned order. 4. Advocate Mr. Magare and Mr. Chaudhari argued that the respondents had applied for membership to society and society has not considered it. Therefore, in accordance with law the grievance was made before the Assistant Registrar. Assistant Registrar has thereafter applied mind and found all the respondents entitled to grant of membership. They further point out that no defence of absence of any application by respondents to the petitioner society was raised before Assistant Registrar. 3 wp7911.10 5. I have perused both the orders. Petitioner society no where contended before the Assistant Registrar that it had not received applications for grant of membership from the respondents. On the contrary, it attempted to show how the respondents were not eligible to be enrolled as members. 6. The consideration by Assistant Registrar shows finding that four respondents namely Murlidhar, Vithal, Popat and Keshav are holding lands. The Assistant Registrar has however found that they are small holders and hence can still become members. By-laws of society do not permit person holding land to become member. The said bylaw does not make any exemption for small holders. It is therefore apparent that order only to that extent is unsustainable. 7. Respondents had applied for grant of membership to Chairman of Society and after waiting for reasonable time they have made their grievance before the Assistant Registrar and Assistant Registrar has then considered it and passed the appropriate orders. Revision against it has been rejected. The society has been directed to enroll them as members. There is no jurisdictional error so far as other respondents are concerned in these concurrent findings. 4 wp7911.10 8. Therefore, the order of Assistant Registrar dated 15.12.2008 is modified and it is held that the respondent nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are not entitled for grant of membership. Appeal filed at their instance and to that extent therefore needs to be rejected. However, grant of membership to other respondents deserve to be maintained. 9. Petition is thus partly allowed. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp7911.10