1 4.wp-254-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi WRIT PETITION NO. 254 OF 2011. Mukund Madhukar Bhide. ..Petitioner. vs. Vasant Madhukar Bhide & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, i/b. Dave & Girish & co., for Petitioner. Mr. Vasant M. Bhide, Respondent No.1, present in person. Mr. G.W. Mattos, AGP, for MHADA. Mr. Satelkar, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 19TH DECEMBER 2011. P.C. : This Court (Coram : Anoop V. Mohta, J.) by its order dated 11th March 2011 recorded that MHADA is required to be joined as a party Respondent to the present Writ Petition and directed the Petitioner to join MHADA as Respondent Nos. 6 to the Petition. The Petitioner after joining MHADA as Respondent No.6, served the Writ Petition on MHADA. However since none appeared for MHADA, this Court requested Advocate Mattos who regularly appears for MHADA to appear in the present Writ Petition for MHADA. Accordingly, Mr. Mattos appears for MHADA. 2. Heard Learned Advocates for the parties. 3. Rule. The Learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 waives service. 2 4.wp-254-11 4. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing. 5. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has impugned the order dated 17th August 2010 passed by the Respondent No. 4 i.e. the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division, in Revision Application No. 132 of 2009. By his impugned order, the Respondent No.4 has set aside the order dated 19th March 2009 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative, K-East Ward, Mumbai, directing the Respondent No.2-Society to accept the Petitioner as a member of the Respondent No.2-Society. The impugned order is passed on the basis that the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, K-East Ward, Mumbai, had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 19th March 2009 and that the said matter ought to have been heard and decided by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, MHADA, Mumbai. 6. The Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 17th August 2010 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies is incorrect and is passed without appreciating the reasoning given by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, K-East Ward, in his order dated 19th March 2009 which is reproduced hereunder : “Defendant No. 1 is the Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Rules, 1961 and the property of the society was earlier belonging to MHADA and the said property came to be transferred in the name of Defendant No. 1 Society by document of 26th July 2000. Therefore, from the documents submitted by Society, it is seen that the MHADA’s rights are not on the said property. Therefore, the said Society comes within the jurisdiction of this Office.” 3 4.wp-254-11 7. Mr. Mattos, Learned Advocate appearing for MHADA submits that the reasoning given by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, K-East Ward, Mumbai, is totally incorrect. He relies on the Notification dated 12th January 1982 issued by the Government (Co- operation Department) in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. By the said Notification, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies of Co-operative Cell, Bombay Housing and Area Development Board, Bandra, is appointed to assist the Registrar and the powers of the Registrar under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 are conferred on him as specified in column II of the Schedule to the said Notification to be exercised by him in respect of the Co-operative Housing Societies of the tenants or allottees of the MHADA. 8. Mr. Mattos submits that admittedly the land is leased to the Respondent No.2 Society by MHADA and the Society is only a lessee in respect of the said land of which MHADA is the lessor. He submits that notwithstanding the lease, MHADA continues to be the owner of the land. He submits that in view thereof, the Society is certainly an allottee of MHADA and the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, K-East Ward ought not to have come to the conclusion that the MHADA has no right on the said property and therefore he has jurisdiction to decide the dispute against the Petitioner. He submits that the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, is therefore correct in allowing the Revision Application and setting aside the impugned order dated 19th March 2009 and remanding the matter to 4 4.wp-254-11 the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, MHADA for fresh trial. 9. In my view, the submissions made by Mr. Mattos are correct. No interference is therefore required under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order. The Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the Office of the Divisional Joint Registrar and/or the Assistant Registrar, K-East Ward, shall forward the relevant papers to the Deputy Registrar, MHADA within two weeks from today. The Deputy Registrar, MHADA shall thereafter within a period of 12 weeks decide the matter on merits. 10. In the circumstances, the Rule is discharged and the Writ Petition is dismissed with the directions recorded in clause 9 above. The Notice of Motion No. 120 of 2011 also stands disposed of. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]