1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.111 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.111 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.111 OF 2007 Nariman Bhavan Premises Co-op.Soc.Ltd.& Anr. .. Petitioners vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Anupam Dighe i/b M/s.India Law Alliance for the petitioners Mr.K.R.Belosey, ’A’ Panel Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 Mr.Ravindra Kadam i/b M/s.Thakordas & Madgavkar for respondent nos.3 CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. R.G. KETKAR, JJ. R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 30TH MARCH, 2009 DATE: 30TH MARCH, 2009 DATE: 30TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. 1. In group of petitions, filed by a cluster of Co-operative Societies impugning the order dated 30.12.2006 passed by respondent nos.2 led to the filing of review petition after the petitions were disposed of in which the lead review petition was review petition no.29 of 2007 in Writ Petition No.1133 of 2003 Maker 2 Chambers VI Co-operative Society Ltd and Anr. Vs. State of Maharsahtra & anr. with others. It was conceded by the then learned Associate Advocate General that the petitioners like the present petitioners being the Society whose premises would not be governed by the impugned order dated 1.8.01 and, therefore, the impugned order could not have been issued by respondent nos.2 i.e. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies and it was further pointed out that the non-occupancy charges as levied by the earlier order dated 9.3.95 may be applicable to "premises societies". On the basis of this statement by a common order dated 26.04.2007, the Division Bench of this court disposed of all the review petitions in writ petitions with a clarification that the impugned order dated 1.08.2001 does not apply to these petitioners societies and the consequent orders based on the said impugned order dated 1.8.2001 are quashed and set aside. It was further clarified that in case respondent officials issue any orders on the basis of order dated 9.8.95 regarding the recovery of non-occupancy charges, liberty was given to those petitioners to challenge the said order by appropriate proceedings. 3 2. In this case, similar orders came to be passed on 30.12.2006 by respondent nos.2 in respect of premises societies. Therefore, we find that the petitioner society is also entitled to get the impugned order quashed and set aside being the "premises society". Petitioner is therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause "a" which reads as under: "(a) that a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India called for the records of the case relating to the impugned order dated 30th December, 2006 passed by 2nd Respondent bearing Reference No. Mumbai/Dy.Reg./A Ward / Section 79(1) / 2466 / 06 / being Exhibit "B" hereto and after considering the legality, validity or otherwise thereof, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the said order." (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (R.G. Ketkar, J.) (R.G. Ketkar, J.) (R.G. Ketkar, J.)