1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.2707 of 2008 Minal Mitesh Kapashi Petitioner Vs. The New Anand Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & anr. Respondents Mr.N.V.Walwalkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.P.M.Shah for petitioner. Ms.Rajani Iyer, Senior Advocate with Mr.S.A.Sawant for resp.no.1. Mr.H.V.Kode for resp.no.2. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. April 25, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Walawalkar, the learned Senior Counsel with Mr.P.M. Shah for the petitioner. Admittedly except the petitioner all other members of the respondent no.1 - Society have decided in favour of redevelopment of the society and by a majority decision the development contract has been awarded to the respondent no.2. The main dispute is still pending before the Co-operative Court. i.e. Dispute No.445 of 2007. The Co-operative Court was pleased to allow the application at Exhibit 5 by granting 2 injunction and the said order came to be challenged in A.O.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008. The said Appeals have been allowed by the Co-operative Appellate Court vide its judgment and order dated 14/3/2008. 2. The lower Appellate Court also noted in its judgment that the present petitioner did not have objection for development but according to hr the limited grievance that was required to be considered was the transparency in the procedural aspects of passing the resolution and awarding the contract. It was alleged by her that the society did not call for General Body Meeting, tenders from various builders were not called for and despite a better offer being available, the respondent no.2 was allotted the contract. It is also noted by the lower Appellate Court that all the members were informed about the purpose of the meeting and the resolution to appoint the respondent no.2 as developer was passed unanimously. However, the husband of the petitioner refused to sign the resolution. There were three proposals of different developers and the Special General Body found the proposal of the respondent no.2 better than the other two. Prima facie, therefore, it was clear that there were no procedural 3 irregularities and contract was not awarded to the respondent no.2 without merits. 3. However, keeping in mind the possibility of the respondent no.2 imposing additional TDR, this Court was anxious to know the future interests to be protected of the society and its members in case there is any additional FSI available and, therefore, the petition was adjourned. The learned counsel for the society has placed before me a copy of the resolution passed on 24/4/2008 and out of the twelve members, ten have signed the said resolution. It is stated that Mrs.Anusaya Doshi was away from Mumbai and, therefore, she could not attend the meeting and sign the resolution. As per the said resolution in case the respondent no.2 gets the benefit of additional FSI / TDR in future (stilt plus seven floors), the same will be shared in the ratio of 50 per cent each between the society and the respondent no.2. I am satisfied that this protects the interest of the society and its members in case the respondent no.2 is successful in acquiring more TDR and raising the building floors beyond seven or 6 and 1/2, if permissible. A copy of the resolution is taken on record and marked as "X" for identification. 4 4. I am, therefore, satisfied that no interference is called for in the order passed by the lower Appellate Court, under the supervisory powers of this Court and hence the petition is rejected summarily. . The learned counsel for the petitioner made an oral application to continue the stay for a few weeks. The prayer is rejected. (B.H.MARL