-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.7634 of 2007 Raj Park II Coop.Housing Socidety Ltd. ..Petitioner vs. 1. Bhagwant Kharpude and and another ..Respondents Shri N.R.Bubna for petitioner. Shri A.L.Latnekar for respondent no.1 Ms.V.S.Mhaispurkar, A.G.P. for respondent no.2. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 13th February, 2008 13th February, 2008 13th February, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The petitioner is a Cooperative Society and it is aggrieved by the orders of the Deputy Registrar and Joint Registrar. 2. One Shobha Shinde was the member of the petitioner society and shop no.5 on the ground floor was allotted to her. It appears that the allegation against her was that she was utilising some additional area and was dumping her goods and articles. The society called upon her to resist from using the additional area but she refused allegedly. Therefore, Resolution was passed and penalty was levied. Penalty amount was not paid and she was also not paying the society dues and hence proceedings under -2- sec.101 were initiated and Recovery Certificate obtained. It appears that Shobha Shinde filed the revision application. The order issuing the certificate was quashed and the matter remitted back to the Deputy Registrar. The matter is still pending. 3. At the same time Shobha Shinde filed a dispute being Dispute No.935 of 2005 in the Cooperative Court and that is pending. Shobha Shinde executed an agreement for sale in favour of respondent no.1 before me and that is how respondent no.1 approached the society and requested that membership rights be granted to him. That application was not taken cognisance of and, therefore, he approached the Deputy Registrar who passed the order on 12th April, 2007 which reads as under: "The application preferred by the first respondent Member is allowed. Society should grant him membership so also enter his name in the register and issue him share certificate". 4. Aggrieved by this order the society preferred revision application being Revision -3- Application No.14 of 2007 which application has also been dismissed. 5. The writ petition is filed challenging these orders and Shri Bubna’s contention is that the society cannot be compelled to grant such rights to a person who is not entitled to property. He submits that with a view to avoid payment of dues Shobha Shinde has sold this property and the transaction is not binding upon the society. The proceedings under section 101 are pending so also the dispute in the Cooperative Court. In such circumstances, the society cannot be compelled to grant any right to the first respondent. 6. I have perused the impugned order. To my mind, this is not a stage at which the transaction between Shobha Shinde and the first respondent can be scrutinised. Whether the said Shobha Shinde owes any sums to the society and whether before the sums are paid and all dues cleared off she could not have resigned from membership and unless she resigns there was no question of accepting the transfer are all matters which must depend upon the outcome of the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar and -4- the Cooperative Court. I see the orders as grant of innocuous request by the first respondent, namely until all disputes are resolved, he be allowed to occupy the property/flat/shop and the society should accept from him the dues, may be subject to the outcome of the proceedings and without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the dispute against Shobha Shinde. 7. If this be the innocuous nature of the request and if that is allowed, I see no reason to interfere with the order under challenge in my discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It is clarified that merely because the society’s petition challenging by the impugned order is dismissed , it does not mean that it has lost all the remedies against the said Shobha Shinde in respect of the subject shop. It is further clarified that subject to the outcome of the proceedings and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the society therein, the society should give effect to the orders of the authorities concerned and merely because it gives effect to the same does not mean that the alleged transfer by Shobha -5- Shinde is held to be valid and binding on the society. With all these clarifications the petition is dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)