-: 1 :- wp- 6074/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6074 OF 2010 Linkway Estate Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. ..Petitioner. Versus Sameer Vashi & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr. P. M. Shah for the petitioner. Mr. M. M. Vashi for respondent no.1. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : August 3, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petition arises out of the membership dispute under the MCS Act, 1960. 1st respondent purchased four units being Unit Nos.401 to 404 alongwith open terrace from the developer by registered agreement dated 18th December 2004. The petitioner-society was registered subsequently in the year 2007-08. 1st respondent thereafter on 7th July 2009 made an application to the petitioner-society for membership. The petitioner-society did not take any action for the period of 3 months on the application of 1st respondent, therefore, he was constrained to approach the Assistant Registrar by way of an appeal under section 22(2) of the MCS Act. The Assistant Registrar after hearing both sides granted srp -: 2 :- wp- 6074/10 1st respondent membership of the petitioner-society in respect of above said units. This order is challenged in the revision by the petitioner before the Divisional Joint Registrar. The revision is admitted, however, the interim stay is rejected and therefore the present writ petition. 3. The petitioner claims that the construction of 4 units on the terrace by the developer is illegal. He further submitted that the developer could not have sold the open terrace of the said building to respondent no.1. The issue of legality of construction cannot be gone into in the proceedings under section 22(2) of MCS Act. The petitioner has already filed suit under the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership Flat Act, 1963 in this Court on Original Side taking objection to the structures mentioned above. 4. Respondent no.1 is granted deemed membership in view of the inaction on the part of petitioner-society for the period of 3 months. The petitioner has not explained why they could not dispose of 1st respondent’s application within the statutory period. In the absence of any explanation to that effect, I do not find any error in the impugned order. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain this petition in my writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 5. Needless to state that the observations made above, are made for -: 3 :- wp- 6074/10 the limited purpose of disposal of this petition and the Divisional Joint Registrar shall dispose of the petitioner’s revision independently on its own merits, without being in any manner influenced by the above observations. The Divisional Joint Registrar shall dispose of the petitioner's revision as expeditiously as possible. (R.V. MORE, J.)