1 Mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.136 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2801 OF 2007 Smitha Shetty & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. S.M. Kamble & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Counsel i/b. S. B.Yadav for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Samdani, Senior Counsel with Mrs. Trupti Shetty and Mr. Darshan R. Mehta i/b. Dhruve Liladhar & Co., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. A.V. Anturkar with Mr. D.W. Bhosle for respondent Nos. 6 and 7 Mr. A.M. Kulkarni, for respondent No.8. WITH REVIEW PETITION NO.29 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2801 OF 2007 Rajesh Patil & Ors. ..Petitioners Versus Mr. S.M. Kamble & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, i/b.P.P.Kulkarni, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Samdani, Senior Counsel with Mrs. Trupti Shetty and Mr. Darshan R. Mehta i/b. Dhruve Liladhar & Co., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. A.V. Anturkar with Mr. D.W. Bhosle for respondent Nos. 6 and 7 Mr. A.M. Kulkarni, for respondent No.8. WITH REVIEW PETITION NO.98 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2801 OF 2007 Jose Mathew & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus 2 S.M. Kamble & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Rui Rodrigues with Mr. Mihir Desai i/b. Sachin A. Shetye for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Samdani, Senior Counsel with Mrs. Trupti Shetty and Mr. Darshan R. Mehta i/b. Dhruve Liladhar & Co., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. A.V. Anturkar with Mr. D.W. Bhosle for respondent Nos. 6 and 7 Mr. A.M. Kulkarni, for respondent No.8. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1047 OF 2010 IN REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO.8312 OF 2010 Meenal Shrivastava & Ors. ..Petitioners Versus Mr. S.M. Kamble & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel with Mr. Rui Rodrigues, Mr. Vijay Agarwal and Mr. S. Rajashirke for the petitioner.s Mr. P.K. Samdani, Senior Counsel with Mrs. Trupti Shetty and Mr. Darshan R. Mehta i/b. Dhruve Liladhar & Co., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. A.V. Anturkar with Mr. D.W. Bhosle for respondent Nos. 6 and 7 Mr. A.M. Kulkarni, for respondent No.8. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7386OF 2009 B.W. Ramteke ..Petitioner Versus Mr. S.M. Kamble & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. V.P.Sawant i/b. P.M. Jadhav, for the petitioner Mr. P.K. Samdani, Senior Counsel with Mrs. Trupti Shetty and Mr. Darshan R. Mehta i/b. Dhruve Liladhar & Co., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. A.V. Anturkar with Mr. D.W. Bhosle for respondent Nos. 6 and 7 Mr. A.M. Kulkarni, for respondent No.8. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 21ST JUNE, 2010 3 P.C. Review Petition No.136 of 2008 is by a group of 21 persons who were admitted by the Administrator as members and whose admission is set aside. It is their contention that they had applied for admission as members of the Society and were duly admitted until the order of this Court. 2. Review Petition No.29 of 2009 is by another four applicants who according to them were admitted, but their admission set aside pursuant to the order of this Court. 3. Review Petition No.98 of 2010 is by four members, who claim that they were admitted pursuant to resignation of original members but whose membership has also been set aside pursuant to the order of this Court. 4. Review Petition No.8312 of 2010 is by thirty persons (shop holders) who according to them were sold premises by the Builder pursuant to an Agreement with the society, but are apprehensive, that because of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2801 of 2007 that their membership has also been set aside and their applications would not be considered by the society. On behalf of the society in so far as these Review Petitioners are concerned, it is pointed out that the society has independently considered the applications which they have rejected by passing appropriate orders on 18th April, 2009. In our opinion, considering the controversy and the observations made hereinafter it will be open to these review applicants to pursue their remedy independently. 4 5. On law in the matter of admission, expulsion or removal of members during the period when the Administrator is appointed is now well settled. The Administrator cannot admit members of the society nor remove or expel members. We, therefore, have no reason to recall our order on that point. 6. The only question is in respect of the complaint which was made to the Administrator by one member Mr. Ramteke that 27 of the original members of the society were ineligible. In so far as these 27 members are concerned, on behalf of the society their learned Counsel makes a statement that the society considering the Bye- laws will consider the said complaint and dispose if off according to law. A further statement is made that if any of these 27 members constituted a part of the managing committee such persons will not participate in the proceedings of managing committee for taking the decision. 7. The other grievance is in respect of the newly inducted members who are review applicants in the three review petitions. In so far as the Review Applicants are concerned, on behalf of the society it is pointed out that the records are not available to them. In these circumstances it will be open to these Review Applicants to independently submit to the society the copies of the application that they have made to the Administrator and if they are not available fresh applications for consideration by the society. The society will consider them according to law. We further make it clear that considering the provisions of Section 23(1)(A) of the M.C.S. Act as the matter is pending in this Court these Review Applicants would not be entitled to the benefit of deemed membership and their applications will be considered from the 5 date the society receives copies of fresh applications from the Review Applicants in the above three review applications. Considering the above the following order:- (1) Review Application Nos. 136 of 2008, 29 of 2009 and 98 of 2010 to the above extent are disposed off. (2) In view of the observations made earlier Review Petition Stamp No.8312 of 2010 is also disposed off. The Review Petitioners can pursue their remedy which in law they are entitled to. (3) In view of the order passed in the Review Petitions, learned Counsel for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.7386 of 2009 seeks leave to withdraw the petition. Writ Petition No.7386 of 2009 is disposed off as withdrawn with no order as to costs. ( D.G. KARNIK, J.) (F. I. REBELLO, J.) 6