SSK/ 1 WP/5296.08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5296 OF 2008 The Runanubandh Sah. Griha Rachana Sanstha ....Petitioner Versus Smt. Aruna Kashinath Patil & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. S. P. Thorat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. S. Dani, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Thorat and Mr. Dani, learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Respondent no.2 is a member of the petitioner-society and was allotted plot no.8. Respondent no.2 executed deed of assignment in respect of the said plot in favour of respondent no.1. Respondent no.1, thereafter, filed an application with the petitioner-society with a request to transfer the membership. This application was rejected by the petitioner- society, and thereafter, respondent no.1 preferred an appeal before the District Deputy Registrar. The appeal was allowed. The petitioner, therefore, thereafter preferred a revision application. This revision was also dismissed by the order impugned in the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Thorat submits that the petitioner-society is the owner of the land, and therefore, respondent no.2 could not have sold out the plot in SSK/ 2 WP/5296.08 question to respondent no.1, and therefore, there is no need to transfer the membership. This submission is without any merit. By the transaction in question, the interest in the said plot was assigned in favour of respondent no.1 by respondent no.2. The society remains the owner of the said plot. 4. Mr. Thorat points out the operative part of the order of the Deputy Registrar and submits that Clause 4 is contradictory to Clause 3. By Clause 3, the membership is made subject to the final outcome of the civil suit between respondent no.1 & 2 and one Mr. Bamb. By Clause 4, the society is directed to enroll respondent no.2 as a member, and also, to carry requisite entry thereof in relevant books. Clause 4 of the operative part of the order of the Deputy Registrar would always be subject to Clause 3, and therefore, there is no contradiction as such between Clause 3 and Clause 4 of the Order. 5. Mr. Thorat, lastly relied upon the resolution of the Society under which some procedure is prescribed for transfer of interest/transfer of the plot. The lower courts have held that the said procedure is directory and not mandatory. I am not inclined to take a different view. The petitioner could not make out any case as to why respondent no.1 should not be enrolled as member of the society. I do not find any merit in the petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)