1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.227 OF 2006 Govind Bapu Potale ...Petitioner Vs. City Industrial & Development Corporation (CIDCO) & Ors. ...Respondents Mrs.Jyoti Chavan for Petitioner Mr. Atul G. Damle for Respondent Nos.4 to 6 CORAM: SMT.RANJANA DESAI & SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATED: 1ST FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C. 1. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Hegde, learned Counsel for the first respondent and learned Counsel for respondents 4 to 6. Petitioner's grievance in this petition is to the proposed development of the building of Tulsi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., situated at Raja Chhatrapati Shivaji Marg, Virar(West), Taluka Vasai, District: Thane (in short said Society)by respondent 6. Several serious allegations are levelled in the petition. It is stated that the building is not in a dilapidated condition. It is stated in the petition that respondent 6 has instigated 2 respondent 2 Virar Municipal Corporation to issue notice to the said Society, calling upon the members of the said Society to vacate, because of the alleged dilapidated condition of the building. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that it is not a dilapidated building and in fact in the instant petition there was an order preventing respondent 6 from demolishing the building. Respondent 6 committed breach and carried out demolition of some portion of the said building. Therefore, a contempt petition is filed by the petitioner which is pending in the Court. In that petition learned single Judge of this Court had called for a report from Architect Mr.Korgaonkar. In view of the allegations made in the petition we called for another copy of the said report and we have perused it. It is not necessary for us to express any opinion about the report submitted by the Architect. We have merely perused the report for our guidance. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments contended that signatures of members of the said Society have been forged. Serious allegations are levelled against respondent 5 who is the Secretary of the said Society. Whether signatures are forged or not, cannot be 3 decided in our writ jurisdiction. Several other disputed questions of facts are also raised which we cannot deal with in our writ jurisdiction. The petitioner may if he is so advised adopt appropriate remedies, if they are available to him. 4. Mr.Damle, learned Counsel for respondents 4 to 6 tried to tender in the Court minutes of Annual General Body Meeting held on 13 th February 2005. Since there is no reference to this meeting in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondents 4 to 6 we refused to take them on record. Since it is contended that signatures of several members are forged in the facts of this case, in our opinion a fresh General Body Meeting should be held and decision may be taken in that meeting whether the development agreement with the 6th respondent binds the Society or not. 5. Several members of the Society are present in the Court today. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the members of the Society will abide by the majority decision. This statement is recorded and accepted by this Court. Therefore in our opinion following order will meet the ends of justice. ORDER i). Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to appoint 4 a responsible officer of this Court to conduct Annual General Body Meeting of the said Society on 1st March, 2008 after following all the necessary formalities. Fees of Registrar (Judicial) are quantified at Rs.2000/- . The Society and the 6th respondent builder shall share the fees. ii). Respondent 5 will issue necessary notice of the Annual General Body Meeting according to the list of members which is with the Registrar of the Co-operative Society. iii). Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that all members of the Society will co-operate with the Secretary for holding the Annual General Body Meeting. iv). The report of the Architect Mr. Korgaonkar be re- sealed and returned to Architect Mr. Korgaonkar. v). The Petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.)