1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.4149 of 2000 Smt.Sadhana Dattatray Argekar .. .. Petitioner v/s. Mitra Pariwar Co-operative & ors. .. Respondents Mr.L.H. Patil with Mr.S.L. Suryawanshi for Petitioner. Mr.A.S. Khandeparkar for Res.No.3. Mr.A.G. Damle for Res.No.1. Mr.M.S. Jadhav for Res.No.4. Mr.A.G. Pandit for Res.Nos.5 & 6. Miss Vaishali Choudhari for Res.No.2. ----- W I T H Writ Petition No.4772 of 2000 Smt.Vaishali Shantaram Naik .. .. Petitioner v/s. Smt.Sadhana Dattatraya Argekar & ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.S. Khandeparkar for Petitioner. Mr.L.H. Patil with Mr.S.L. Suryawanshi for Res.No.1. Mr.M.S. Jadhav for Res.No.4. Mr.A.G. Damle for Res.No.2. Mr.A.G. Pandit for Res.Nos.5 & 6. Miss Vaishali Choudhari for Res.No.3. ----- W I T H 2 Writ Petition No.9602 of 2003 Madhao Ramchandra Dighe .. .. Petitioner v/s. Mitra Pariwar Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & ors. .. .. Respondents Mis Vaishali Chaudhari for Petitioner. Mr.L.H. Patil with Mr.S.L. Suryawanshi for Res.No.2. Mr.A.G. Pandit for Res.Nos.5 & 6. Mr.M.S. Jadhav for Res.No.4. Mr.A.S. Khandeparkar i/by M/s.Khandeparkar & Associates for No.3. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date of reserving the order: 25th February, 2010 Date of pronouncing the order : 11th March, 2010 P.C. : 1.Rule, returnable forthwith. 2.The Petitioners in these three Writ Petitions claim to be members of Respondent No.1-Society. The Petitioners as well as some of the Respondents have been given the membership except the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4149 of 2000 one Smt.Sadhana Dattatray Argekar. 3.It would be convenient to refer to the Petitioner and the Respondents by name. The Co-operative Society has been formed for housing of State Government servants. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.4149 of 2000, Smt.Sadhana Argekar, is admittedly a State Government 3 servant. She has not been made a member of Respondent No.1-Society. She has challenged the membership given to the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.4772 of 2000, Smt.Vaishali Shantaram Naik, and Respondent Nos.5 and 6 in her Petition Ms.Vijaya Raghavendra Phadnis and Miss Alka Phadnis, respectively. 4.The contentions of each of these parties have been considered by the Co-operative Court No.I, Bombay and the Co-operative Appellate Court, which orders have been challenged in each of these Petitions. 5.It is unnecessary to go through all the contentions of the conferment of membership of Respondent No.1-Society which include allegations of committing forgery and the claim on the basis of seniority because the essential lis that remains between the parties is the entitlement to the membership on the ground of being State Government servants and not having any other flat or residential premises within the city of Mumbai, as a qualification of membership. 6.It is contended by Smt.Sadhana Dattatray Argekar that Ms.Vijaya Raghavendra Phadnis and Miss Alka Phadnis have been wrongly given membership due to the influence of their father Mr.R.G. Phadnis, who controlled and managed Respondent No.1-Society for 15/20 years and who 4 had a residential premises therein. However, Vijaya Phadnis is independently a State Government servant. She lives independent of her father. She is, therefore, qualified to become a member of Respondent No.1- Society. An associate membership has been conferred upon her sister Alka Phadnis. However, by virtue of the associate membership, she has not been allotted a flat. The allotment of only one flat for two sisters has been made. One of the sisters is eligible. Hence under the strict requirements of qualification, they would pass such tests together in respect of one flat in Respondent No.1-Society. 7.Smt.Vaishali Shantaram Naik has been given a membership of Respondent No.1-Society which is also challenged by Sadhana Argekar. This challenge is on the ground that Vaishali Naik has another residential premises within the city of Mumbai. She was required to show the special circumstances in which another flat could be allotted to her despite already having one flat. She has not shown any special requirement in that behalf. She, therefore, could not have been allotted the flat in Respondent No.1-Society and could not have been made a member therein. The allotment of a flat to her and the confirmation of membership upon her is distinctly seen to be illegal. 5 8.Respondent No.1-Society had already constructed 22 flats, after which additional FSI was acquired by the Society. Consequently, four more flats were constructed. There were nine candidates for membership. Some of the members have been wait-listed, though there is no specific provision in the bye-laws for being a wait-listed member . Sadhana Argekar, though qualified, has not been made a member and has not been allotted a flat. Consequently, the allotment of the flat and the confirmation of membership upon Vaishali Naik, which is seen to have been illegally made, is required to be set aside. In her place, Sadhana Argekar must be conferred membership of Respondent No.1-Society and be allotted a flat therein. 9.Sadhana Argekar has not disputed the membership of other members. That aspect need not be adverted to. 10.Court Receiver has been appointed in respect of the flats in dispute. The Court Receiver shall hand over vacant possession of the flat allotted to Vaishali Naik in Respondent No.1-Society to Sadhana Argekar. 11.It is mentioned that as and when further FSI is made available and further flats are constructed, the other wait-listed members may be conferred membership and allotted flats. Respondent No.1-Society may do that in 6 accordance with law of Co-operation and the bye-laws of the Society. 12.The above Writ Petitions are disposed of. Rule is granted / discharged accordingly. 13.No order as to costs. This order is stayed for 4 weeks. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)