1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 9668 OF 2009 Asha Deep Co-operative Hsng. Society Ltd. ...Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Prashant Naik, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. R.M.Patne, A.G.P for Respondents 1 to 3 Mr. D.A.Nalawade i/b. Mr. R.A.Lokhande, Advocate for Respondent No.4 CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C. : 1. The orders which are challenged in this Writ Petition relate to the grant of membership of the Petitioner Society upon Respondent No.4 as the heir and legal representative of the erstwhile member who expired on 19 th March 2007. The Respondent No.4 who is the husband of the deceased member applied for membership on 20 th May 2007 which was received on 4 th June 2007 by the Petitioner Society. The Petitioner Society did not accept and rejected his application. Instead they wrote a letter on 18 th June 2007 showing certain irregularities and discrepancies in the application 2 made. Thereafter, the Petitioner Society wrote 2 letters dated 14 th July 2007 and 20 th July 2007 with regard to the membership, but did not grant the membership. The Petitioner applied for membership before the Respondent NO.2 under the provisions of Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 (the Act). The Petitioner would be deemed to be the member since his application for membership was not rejected within the statutory period of 3 months from the receipt of the application for membership. 2. Consequently, the Respondent No.2 passed an order admitting Respondent No.4 as the member and the Appeal therefrom made to the Respondent No. 3 by the Society has been dismissed. 3. The Advocate on behalf of the Society claims that the liability of the Society has not been discharged under Rule 24 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules 1961. The liabilities are not crystallized. No liquidated amount or admitted amount is due and payable. There is dispute filed by the erstwhile member in the Co-operative Court. That dispute is pending since 31 st January 1997 when the initial injunction was granted. The Society has not taken any steps to have the injunction order vacated or to otherwise have the dispute decided. Since no crystallized liability as shown under Rule 24 would not apply. The impugned orders therefore, cannot be faulted. 4. The Writ Petition is dismissed. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)