1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. WRIT PETITION NO.2208 OF 2009 Srinathdham Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ..Petitioner. Vs. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, ‘S’ Ward, Mumbai and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. Rajesh S. Datar with Mr. Pankaj Das for the Petitioner. Mr. A.B. Ketkar, AGP for Respondents 1 to 3. Mr. Sanjay Jain with Ms Ankansha Thakkar i/b Purnanand & Co. for Respondent No.4 .... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 7th December, 2009. P.C. : 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel and at their request taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The Fourth Respondent is a promoter within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the 2 Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963. The Fourth Respondent constructed a building and entered into agreements for sale of flats with flat purchasers. The flat purchasers moved an application before the First Respondent for registration of a co-operative society. The application for registration was allowed on 23rd December, 2005 by the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, ‘S’ Ward. The Fourth Respondent thereupon moved an application under Section 21-A of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 for deregistration of the society. The application was dismissed by the Divisional Joint Registrar on 11th November, 2008. The Fourth Respondent thereupon moved a revision application under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 before the State Government. The revision application was allowed by the Minister (Co-operation ) on 19th September, 2009. The grievance of the Petitioners is that though they were entitled to be heard and the order of deregistration would directly affect their interest, they were not furnished with an opportunity of a personal hearing. 3 3. The record before the Court will show that on 28th August, 2009 the Assistant Registrar ‘S’ Ward issued a notice to the Petitioner stating that on the date of the notice a hearing has been fixed before the Minister (Co-operation) and that even prior thereto two hearings had taken place. That no oral submissions were urged at the hearings is apparent from the language and tenor of the notice. The Petitioners were directed to place their written submissions on the record within three days. The Petitioners filed their submissions in revision on 29th August, 2009 upon which the impugned order was passed. There is merit in the grievance that the manner in which the revisional authority has proceeded has resulted in a breach of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner was registered as a co- operative society on an application which was allowed by the Assistant Registrar. The application of the Fourth Respondent for deregistration was dismissed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. Deregistration of the co-operative society would affect all the flat purchasers and would be a matter of serious prejudice. The Petitioner 4 was entitled to the benefit of a personal hearing. The contention of the Petitioner is that there is a breach by the Fourth Respondent of its obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963. Whether that is so would be a matter for the determination of the revisional authority but having regard to the nature of the issues which arise before the revisional authority, it was only appropriate and proper that the Petitioner should have been given a personal hearing. The impugned order would therefore have to be quashed and set aside on that ground alone. 4. In the circumstances, the Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 19th September, 2009 passed by the revisional authority. The revision application shall stand restored to the file of the State Government which shall dispose of the application after hearing all the concerned parties and by passing a reasoned order. All the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open 5 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Stay refused. ****