IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.41 OF 2007 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.41 OF 2007 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.41 OF 2007 Aamir Ali ..Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr.RaJ Patel i/b. Mr.Mustafa Motiwala for petitioner. Mr.K.R.Belosay, A-Panel for respondents CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND J.P.DEVADHAR, J. J.P.DEVADHAR, J. J.P.DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 28TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 28TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATED : 28TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. By this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner seeks an order directing the respondents to issue appropriate circular to all the housing societies in the State of Maharashtra to desist from refusing to issue no objection certificate for transfer of membership in the Housing Societies on the ground that the proposed transferee belongs to a particular community or professes a particular religion. 2. The petitioner who is a Cine Artist claims that during November, 2006 he was in search of a house in the suburb of Mumbai. The petitioner claims that - = : 2 : = - through a broker he had selected a flat in Springfield Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. at Lokhandwala, Andheri (W), Mumbai. The petitioner claims that the broker informed that since the petitioner belongs to Muslim community, the Society would not admit him as a member of the Society. Hence this petition. 3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the object of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (‘1960 Act’ for short) is to provide a systematic development of the co-operative movement in consonance with the directive principles laid down in the Constitution. It is contended that the practice of refusing to consider the proposal for membership on the ground that the proposed transferee belongs to a particular community or professes a particular religion would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and, therefore, it is necessary to issue necessary direction to all the housing societies in the State of Maharashtra to that effect. 4. We do not find any merit in this contention, because firstly, neither the bye laws of the Society, nor any decision of the Society refusing membership based on the religion of the proposed member is placed before us. No relief can be granted without there - = : 3 : = - being any specific instance. Secondly, section 23 of the 1960 Act clearly provides for open membership and the membership cannot be based on the caste or the religion of the person seeking membership. The Apex Court in the case of Zoroastrian Co-operative Housing Zoroastrian Co-operative Housing Zoroastrian Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. V/s. District Registrar, Society Ltd. & Anr. V/s. District Registrar, Society Ltd. & Anr. V/s. District Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Urban) and Ors. Co-operative Societies (Urban) and Ors. Co-operative Societies (Urban) and Ors. reported in A.I.R. 2005 Supreme Court 2306 A.I.R. 2005 Supreme Court 2306 A.I.R. 2005 Supreme Court 2306 held that a Bye-law restricting membership to members of one community is a contract and is not illegal. 5. Thus, the provisions of 1960 Act being clear and unambiguous, the question of the Government issuing any direction to the housing societies regarding open membership does not arise at all. 6. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE J.P.DEVADHAR, J. J.P.DEVADHAR, J. J.P.DEVADHAR, J.