1 51 wp.5442.11 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5442 OF 2011 Duru Mahal Co-operative Society Limited. ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents ----- Ms. Kranti S.S. Anand for the Petitioner. Mr. S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent No.1 / State. Mr. V.N.Solanki for Respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 12 th August, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 2 The challenge by the Petitioner in this petition is to the order dated 8 th January, 2010 passed by the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies in exercise of powers under Section 23 (2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) and the order dated 25 th March, 2011 passed in the revision application by which the said order dated 8 th January, 2010 2 51 wp.5442.11 has been confirmed. 3 One Mr.Gaurang N. Sanghvi was a member of the Petitioner – Society and by virtue of the membership of the Society, he was holding a garage. The said Mr.Gaurang died on 10 th July, 2002. The case made out by the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 is that the said Mr.Gaurang had filed a nomination in the name of Respondent No.6 – Vikram. It appears that on the basis of the nomination, on 16 th June, 2003, the Respondent No.6 applied for transfer of the membership in his name. However, the Petitioner – Society declined to accede to the request on the ground that there was no nomination. Thereafter, on 8 th May, 2007, the Respondent No.2 submitted that an application for grant of membership alongwith the nomination form signed by the deceased member, death certificate of the member, no objection certificate of the legal representatives and no objection in writing of the Respondent No.6 – Vikram. However, the said request was rejected by the Petitioner - Society and therefore, an application was made by the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 under Section 23 (2) of the said Act. The 3 51 wp.5442.11 Assistant Registrar allowed the said application and directed the Petitioner – Society to enter the name of the Respondent No.2 as a member in requisite register. 4 The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that initially one Mr.Vikram (Respondent No.6) claimed on the basis of the nomination though there was no nomination made by the deceased member. The learned counsel submitted that thereafter, the Respondent No.2 claimed on the basis of the nomination. The learned counsel submitted that the said Vikram is not the legal representative of the deceased. Her submission is that there was no order of the Competent Court produced by the Respondent No.2 and therefore, there is every possibility that some other persons may also claim membership. The another submission is that the will of the deceased member – Gaurang does not refer to garage premises held by Mr.Gaurang. The submission is that the Assistant Registrar could not have granted membership. 4 51 wp.5442.11 5 I have carefully considered the submissions. It is not in dispute that the said Mr.Gaurang was a member of the Society. The Respondent No.2 claims to be the son of Mr.Gaurang and the Respondent No.3 claims to be the widow of Mr.Gaurang and the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 claim to be the daughters of Mr.Gaurang. It is true that the Respondent No.6 made an application on the basis of the nomination, which was not accepted by the Petitioner – Society. The Advocate representing all the contesting Respondents including the said Vikram addressed a notice to the Petitioner – Society setting out what has transpired about the membership. By the said notice, the Petitioner was called upon to transfer the membership in the name of the Respondent No.2. The said notice has been issued also at the instance of the Respondent No.6. The Respondent No.2 filed an affidavit of himself and Respondent Nos.3 to 5 for indemnifying the Society against any claim/demand or other proceedings taken out by any other person. The Respondent No.2 submitted an indemnity bond was in favour of the Society. The application under Section 23 (2) was 5 51 wp.5442.11 made by not only by the legal representatives of the deceased member, but also by the said Vikram (Respondent No.6). Thus, it is obvious that the said Vikram who was earlier claiming to be a nominee had no objection if the membership was transferred in the name of the Respondent No.2. Once it is an admitted position that the Mr.Gaurang was admittedly a member, the fact that there is no reference to the membership in respect of the garage premises in his will is completely irrelevant. The Petitioner has not disputed the relationship between the deceased member and the Respondent Nos.2 to 5. The Petitioner – Society was sufficiently protected as the Respondent No.2 had submitted an Indemnity Bond. Hence, there is no reason to find fault with the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below. 6 No case for interference is made out. Writ petition is rejected. [ A.S.OKA, J ]