1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8423 OF 2008 Powai Nitie Garden Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. ... Petitioner v/s Shrii D.B.Pacharne & ors. ... Respondents Mr.M.R.Phal for the petitioner. Mr.Amol P. Mhatre for the respondent No.1. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 10TH JUNE, 2009 P.C.: 1. The petitioner challenges the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, dated 26.6.2008 and the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co- operative Societies, confirming that order. 2. By the impugned orders, the petitioner has been directed to admit the respondent No.1 as a member of the petitioner Society and accordingly make the requisite changes in its record. This order has been passed under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Co- 2 operative Societies Act (in short “M.C.S.Act”). 3. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that there was no application filed by the 1st respondent as required under Section 23 of the M.C.S. Act. It is contended that assuming such an application had been made, it was not in the format required by the appellants. It is further submitted that the application for membership must be tendered in a particular format as required under Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules (in short “M.C.S. Rules”) which prescribes that the application must be in the format laid down in the bye-laws of the Society or as prescribed by the Registrar. 4. I have perused the impugned orders and I do not find any illegality or perversity requiring this Court to interfere with the orders. 5. The Society was registered in the year 1995. The petitioner who was initially one of the promotors, was not included thereafter and, therefore, he filed a dispute being Case No.CCV/86 of 1996. The Co- operative Court held that the disputant i.e. the 3 respondent No.1 was entitled to membership once it was approved by the opponent No.2 i.e. the Mumbai Housing & Area Development Authority. The Co- operative Court further directed that the respondent No.1 should be allotted a flat after obtaining the eligibility certificate from the MHADA. The respondent No.1 submitted an application on 22.5.2000 to the Society to allot him the vacant flat and to grant him membership in the society within 15 days. A reply was sent to the 1st respondent on 2.8.2000 by the society in which it was stated that, in a managing committee meeting held on 6.6.2000, a resolution was passed to reject the request contained in the letter dated 22.5.2000 submitted by the 1st respondent for allotment of the flat in the society as all the flats in the building stand allotted to other members of the society. There is no reference to the membership of the respondent No.1. 6. Despite no communication having been sent within three months to the respondent No.1, as required under Section 23 of the M.C.S.Act, the petitioner did not make the requisite changes in its records, admitting the respondent No.1 as a member. 4 7. In my opinion, the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar and the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co- operative Societies, cannot be faulted. The submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the application should be in a particular format would not arise in this case. The Co-operative Court has already held that the respondent was entitled to be a member and all that was required was a formal approval of the membership from the Mumbai Housing & Area Development Authority. This approval was granted on 12.5.2000 and, therefore, in my view, there is no perversity in the impugned orders. 8. Writ Petition rejected. ..... 5