1 dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2914 OF 2008 Modi Compound Co-op.Hsg.Society Ltd. Petitioners vs. 1.Modi Compound S.R.A. Co-op.Hsg.Society (proposed) & ors. Respondents Mr.S.D.Patil for the petitioner. Mr.R.V.Govilkar for respondent no.1. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP for respondents, 2, 3, 5 and 6. CORAM : R.V. MORE,J. DATED : 31st July, 2008 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By the impugned order dated 13.12.2007 the respondent no.2 allowed the Revision filed by respondent no.1 thereby setting aside the order of respondent no.5-Divisional Joint Registrar. The petitioner-society was registered in the year 1988. However, the same was de-registered by the respondent no.3-Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies under section 21 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, "Act of 1960"). The petitioner after lapse of a period of 9 years preferred an Appeal before respondent no.5-Divisional Joint Registrar. This Appeal was allowed on 30.12.2006 and the de-registration order 2 passed by respondent no.3 on 31.3.1997 was quashed and set aside. This order was challenged by respondent no.1 by way of Revision under Section 154 before respondent no.2 and the same was allowed and, therefore, the present petition. 3. After de-registration of petitioner-society the property in question was declared as slum area on 4.7.2000. The then office bearers of the petitioner-society tried to form a new society in the name of "New Paradise Cooperative Housing Society". However, they could not succeed in forming the new society. This fact also shows that the then office bearers of petitioner-society were very much aware about the de-registration of petitioner-society. They did accept the de-registration order and, therefore, tried to form above new society. In the meanwhile, the respondent no.1 was formed. 4. There is no dispute that after declaration of property as a slum area, the powers for registration of society lies with the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Slum Rehabilitation). The respondent no.1-society has already sent a proposal for registration on 5.4.2007 which is pending for consideration before S.R.A. In view of this fact, if the order passed by the respondent no.5-Divisional Joint 3 Registrar is allowed to stand, it will create unnecessary complication. In that view of the matter, no fault can be found with the order of the learned Minister. The petitioner could not have challenged de-registration order after a period of 9 years especially when in the meantime the respondent no.1 was formed and a proposal was sent to SRA for registration and is in process. 5. Mr.Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent no.1 had no locus to file Revision before respondent no.2. He relied upon the decision of Division Bench in the case of The Beed The Beed The Beed District District District Central Co-opeative and Milk Production & Central Co-opeative and Milk Production & Central Co-opeative and Milk Production & Distribution Distribution Distribution Federation vs. The State of Maharashtra & Federation vs. The State of Maharashtra & Federation vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors., ors., ors., 1984 C.T.J. 196 1984 C.T.J. 196 1984 C.T.J. 196. I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of S.R.A. policy vide its Circular No.20 dated 18.08.1998 that the registration of cooperative Housing Society of slum dwellers should be done only after grant of commencement certificate. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any substance in the petition and the same is dismissed. [R.V. [R.V. [R.V. MORE,J.] MORE,J.] MORE,J.]