WP 6443/09 1 SSK/20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6443 OF 2009 Neel Nandini B Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Rajkumar Devnani, C.A. of Mr. Madan Raheja, Chairman of the Petitioner-Society. Mr. Y. S. Jahagirdar, Sr. Advocate alongwith Mr. J. J. Bhatt, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Anjali Chandurkar i/b. M/s. Vinod Mistry & Co., Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 5th AUGUST, 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr. Rajkumar Devnani, Power of Attorney holder for Madan Raheja, the Chairman of the Petitioner-Society, Mr. Jahagirdar, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and Mr. Patne, learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. The Petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society and Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 purchased Flat No.2 in the Petitioner’s Society. The Respondent Nos.4 & 5 thereafter, applied for membership to the Petitioner-Society by making an application on 3rd June, 2005. It is the WP 6443/09 2 SSK/20 contention of the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 that this application was received by the Petitioner-Society on 5th July, 2005. Despite this, no action was taken and therefore, an application was filed before Deputy Registrar under section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. This application was allowed and thereby the Petitioner-Society was directed to enroll the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 as members. The Petitioner challenged this order by filing a revision under section 154 of the M.C.S.Act, 1960 before the Divisional Joint Registrar. The Divisional Joint Registrar, however, confirmed the order of Deputy Registrar and therefore, the Petitioner is before me. 3. The only question which deserves consideration in this writ petition is, whether the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have become deemed members of the Petitioner-Society. The application dated 13th June, 2005 by the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to the Petitioner is not disputed. The dispute is about receipt of this application. The Respondent Nos.4 & 5 claim that this application was sent by U.C.P. which was received by the Petitioner on 5th July, 2005. On the contrary, it is the claim of the Petitioner that the application was received on 11th September, 2005 and therefore, proceedings under section 22(2) of the M.C.S.Act, initiated on 24th October, 2005 were not maintainable. I have perused the order of the Deputy Registrar as well as the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar. The Deputy WP 6443/09 3 SSK/20 Registrar in last para on page 49 has recorded categorically a statement of the Chairman of Petitioner-Society that the Petitioner Society has no objection to enroll Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 and decision will be taken in that regard in the ensuing meeting to the Managing Committee. The contention of the Petitioner was also recorded that the said application of Respondent Nos.4 and 5 was received by the Petitioner on 11th September, 2005. However, the Deputy Registrar relied upon the acknowledgment of U.C.P. and recorded finding that the Petitioner-Society received the Respondent Nos.4 and 5’s application on 5th July, 2005. This finding of the Deputy Registrar is confirmed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. The Petitioner in the present petition, during the course of hearing of this petition produced original application filed by Respondent Nos.4 and 5. I have perused the same. Perusal of the said application, discloses that there is difference in ink used for signing the acknowledgment and writing date. 4. In above circumstances, I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the lower authorities on the basis of U.C.P. Certificate that the Petitioner received Respondent Nos.4 and 5’s application on 5th July, 2005. Obviously, the Petitioner has not taken any action for a period of three months from the receipt of this application and therefore, the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were constrained to approach the Deputy Registrar on 24th October, 2005 under section 22(2) of the M.C.S.Act, 1960. WP 6443/09 4 SSK/20 The Deputy Registrar being satisfied, granted deemed membership of the Petitioner Society to Respondent Nos.4 and 5. This order as stated above is confirmed by the revisional authority. I do not find any error in the impugned order so as to enable me to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 5. In view of the disposal of the petition, the civil application no. 2891 of 2009 will not survive for consideration and same is disposed of, as such. (R. V. MORE, J.)