: 1 : wp.8665.2010.sxw vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8665 OF 2010 M/s.Vishal Enterprises ... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.R.M. Vasudeo for the Petitioner Mr.R.M. Patne, AGP, for Resp. Nos.1, 3 & 4 Mr.Anil Agarwal Respondent No.2 CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE: JUNE 9, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Vasudeo, appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Agarwal appearing for the contesting respondent. Perused with their assistance the order of the Minister, Department of Cooperation, Government of Maharashtra in the revision application which was filed by the contesting respondent before me. 2. The dispute is about registration of a cooperative housing society. The petitioner is a developer and builder who is held to be a promoter within the meaning of the said term under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963. Finding that the petitioner-promoter has not gone ahead and registered the society, the occupants/Gala holders themselves approached the Deputy Registrar and got the society registered. Aggrieved by that registration the : 2 : wp.8665.2010.sxw petitioner builder approached the Joint Registrar, who, set aside that order. One of the occupants approached the State Government in revision and the Minister has therefore interfered and held that the registration is valid. 3. The apprehension of the petitioner that by this registration, their rights in the property would be adversely affected is not well founded at all. There is no discussion much less any conclusion with regard to the rights of the parties under the development agreement or the individual agreements. It is only because the Gala holders/occupants desired to organise themselves into a cooperative housing society and which obligation is put forth in terms of the Act on builder but finding that it was not so performed that they approached the Deputy Registrar for registration of the society. The orders made in that behalf do not affect the petitioner in any manner leave alone to either exploit residual or balance FSI and develop the property in further phases. All these matters are covered by distinct documents and contracts and cannot be said to be covered by any observations in the impugned order. 4. Clarifying thus, I find that there is no merit in the petition. Petition is thus dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)