1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2257 OF 2008 Shri D. G. Patil Petitioner vs. 1.Prakash M.Kulthe & ors. Respondents Mr.P.B.Shah for the petitioner. Mr.Kishor Patil i/by Mr.P.N.Joshi for respondents 1 and 4. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for respondents 2, 3 and 5. CORAM : R.V. MORE,J. DATED : 17th July, 2008 P.C. Heard Mr.Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioner,Mr.Patil, the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 4 and Mr.Rayrikar, the learned AGP for respondents 2, 3 and 5. 2. Respondent no.4-society was granted registration by respondent no.2-District Deputy Registrar. The present petitioner, who is builder/developer challenges the said registration by filing appeal before respondent no.3. This appeal was allowed and cancelled the registration. Respondent no.1 who is chairman of respondent no.4 preferred Revision before the Hon’ble Minister of State for Cooperation, challenging the said order and by the impugned order, the said revision was allowed and the 2 order of respondent no.3-Divisional Joint Registrar was set aside and registration granted by respondent no.2 was confirmed. The Hon’ble Minister has relied upon the judgment reported in 2002(5) BCR 177 2002(5) BCR 177 2002(5) BCR 177 to come to a conclusion that the developer/builder has no role to play in the process of registration and therefore, he cannot be termed as an aggrieved party by registration of the society. The Hon’ble Minister also found that 60% of flat purchasers have signed the registration proposal and, therefore, respondent no.2 issued registration certificate correctly. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, I do not find any error in the approach adopted by the Hon’ble Minister of State for Cooperation. 3. Mr.Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that he has filed Regular Civil Suit No.472/2007 against respondent no.4-society and others for declaration that he is entitled to develop the property mentioned in para 1 of the Suit. He further states that this property is also included in the proposal for registration. He further apprehends that the impugned order may come in his way, in prosecuting the relief claimed in the suit. 4. In the above facts and circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: 3 ORDER ORDER ORDER (i) Writ petition is dismissed. (ii) The registration of respondent no.4-society will not come in the way of petitioner vis-a-vis his rights claimed in the suit and the suit shall be disposed of independently on its own merit and without being influenced by the present order. [R.V. [R.V. [R.V. MORE,J.] MORE,J.] MORE,J.]