vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7869 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7869 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7869 OF 2008 Pralhad Vithoba Kamble ... Petitioner V/s. Santacruz Mahesh Coop. Housing Society & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.S.S. Patwardhan for Petitioner Mr.Vinod Jadhav for Respondent No.1 Mr.Vijay Patil for Respondent No.2 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 11, 2008 DECEMBER 11, 2008 DECEMBER 11, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the appellate Court under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act by which the appellate Court has directed the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of flat No.A/9 to the Society for the purpose of redevelopment of the building of the society. 2. A dispute has been filed by the petitioner against the society before the Cooperative Court contending that the resolution of the Managing Committee to redevelop the property through Respondent No.2 is illegal. The main contention is that public bids have not been invited for the work to be carried out in accordance with bye-law 158(a), and therefore, the : 2 : entrustment of the work for redevelopment of the building of the society to Respondent No.2 is illegal. A dispute has also been filed by the society against the petitioner i.e. Case No.CC-2/21 of 2008 in which the society had sought interim relief against the petitioner. This interim relief was rejected by the Cooperative Court by passing the order on 18.3.2008. Similarly, the interim relief sought by the petitioner in his dispute was also rejected. 3. An appeal was preferred by the society against the order dated 18.3.2008. The appellate Court after considering the material on record has directed the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the flat in order to complete the redevelopment of the building of the society. 4. Significantly, the petitioner and one other person are the only two members of the society who have refused to hand over vacant possession of their flats. All the other members have been shifted to another location by Respondent No.2 as they had agreed for redevelopment of the property through Respondent No.2. The learned advocate for the society states that the other member who supported the petitioner earlier has also agreed to shift and have the building redeveloped by Respondent No.2. : 3 : 5. The three main contentions raised by the petitioner are (i) that no public notice was issued calling for tenders; (ii) that the notice of the meetings were not given to him regarding the redevelopment and; (iii) that the managing committee had no authority to sign the development agreement as they were disqualified under the provisions of section 73A and B of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. All these issues have been considered by the appellate Authority and in my view, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the appellate Court. A majority of the members have agreed to redevelop the property through Respondent No.2. In fact, the petitioner has also signed a Memorandum of Understanding for the redevelopment by Respondent No.2, a copy of which is annexed to the petition. In these circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the appellate Court. 6. Petition is rejected.