wp8170-10.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8170 OF 2010 Himalaya Parvatiya Coop. Housing Society Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Rajendra Diwan Singh Bhandari .. Respondent Mr.V.A.Sugdare for petitioner Ms.P.S.Cardozo, AGP for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 23rd JUNE 2011. P.C.: 1] The petitioner is a cooperative housing society. It is aggrieved by the concurrent orders directing it to admit and enroll the first respondent as its member. The only argument of Mr.Sugdare is that the first respondent did not forward original documents but photo copies. The second contention is that the society is concerned with a right person being admitted as member and there should not be any occasion for the society to get involved in unnecessary disputes. wp8170-10.doc 2 2] A perusal of both orders under challenge would reveal that the Deputy Registrar had before him grievance of the first respondent that he purchased flat No.22 from one Rawat by an agreement dated 26th February 1990. He, thereafter, paid necessary stamp duty and got the agreement registered. He submitted an application for membership along with necessary documents by RPAD and the same were received by the Society on 22nd December 2006. He did not receive any reply till the expiry of 90 days and, therefore, he is deemed to have become member of the society. 3] The Authorities have found that the society's contention that it replied to the first respondent within a period of 90 days that his application cannot be considered, is incapable of being accepted. The argument of the first respondent was that there is no communication within the period specified in law. The reply was given on 16th March 2008 after expiry of 90 days. The application was received wp8170-10.doc 3 some time in December. In these circumstances and when there were previous orders, the Authorities found no justification for the society's stand and resistance to the application for membership. If there was any dispute between the vendors and purchaser of the flat the society has no concern with it as ultimately it will abide by the adjudication in that behalf by competent court. Presently, the requirement of the by-laws having been fulfilled and neither the provisions of the Act nor the Rules or by-laws contemplate production of original copies or prohibit entertaining photocopies of the transfer documents, the rejection by the petitioner society cannot be sustained in law. I do not see any reason to interfere with this concurrent findings based as they are on documents on record and consistent therewith. However, it is clarified that admission of the first respondent as a member will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner and all those who are claiming any rights in the flats. Petition dismissed subject to above. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)