vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6632 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6632 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6632 OF 2008 Asmita Jyoti Cooprative Housing Society Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. Shantilal H. Shah ... Respondent a/w WRIT PETITION NO.6644 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6644 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6644 OF 2008 Asmita Jyoti Cooprative Housing Society Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. Arvind V. Rane ... Respondent Mr.N.V. Walawalkar i/b V.B. Rajure for Petitioner Mr.N.N. Bhadrashete for Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 23, 2009 APRIL 23, 2009 APRIL 23, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The facts in both petitions are similar and they have therefore been taken up for admission together. 2. The Petitioner society is aggrieved by the interim order passed in favour of the respondents in both the matters. According to the petitioner, the trial Court i.e. the Cooperative Court and the Appellate Court have erred in directing at an ad-interim stage that the allotment made in respect of the respondents should not be cancelled. The society has : 2 : been directed to hand over possession of the completed shop within a period of eight months after collecting the balance amount originally agreed with respect to the price of the shops. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel at some length. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the shops which were initially allotted to the respondents have now been allotted to some other persons, after cancelling the allotment in favour of the respondents in both the Petitions. It is submitted that this was done pursuant to a resolution passed by the Managing Committee on 8.12.2007 and, therefore, the trial Court ought not to have passed the impugned order. It is further submitted that there is material on record to indicate that after cancellation of the allotment in favour of the respondents, some other persons have been allotted the premises and therefore, the respondents would not be entitled to any interim relief. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondents in both the petitions submits that this Court should not interfere with the impugned orders by exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution as there is no perversity or error apparent on the face of the record. He submits that there was not even a whisper in : 3 : either the written statement filed by the petitioner before the trial Court or in the appeal memo preferred by the petitioner that third party rights have been created in respect of the shops which were initially allotted to the respondents. The learned Counsel points out that the resolution which the society relies on i.e. dated 8.12.2007 refers to shop No.12 only and not shop Nos.27 and 28. Shop No.12 was allotted to the Respondent in Writ Petition No.6632 of 2008 whereas Shop Nos.27 and 28 were allotted to the Respondent in the other Petition. He further points out that although the resolution indicating that the shop No.12 has been allotted to one Naqvi there is no resolution brought on record to indicate that the allotment in favour of the respondents had been cancelled. Apart from this he submits that the petitioner has settled its disputes with several persons who were similarly situated as the Respondents, whereas the Respondents in these two petitions have been singled out for a different treatment. 4. On a perusal of the order of the trial Court and the appellate Court, in my opinion, there is no perversity or illegality in these orders. Discretionary orders have been passed with which I do not see any need to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India except that the order would require modification : 4 : to the extent that the society shall hand over vacant possession of the shops allotted to the respondents on the basis of the price agreed to by them in respect of 16 other shop owners. 5. Mr.Walawalkar applies for extension of the ad-interim relief granted earlier. In my opinion, such an order need not be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the application is rejected.