1 (WP 7277 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7277 OF 2010 Tulipa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ….Petitioner Vs. The Divisional Joint Registerar, Co-op. Societies, Mumbai and Ors. ….Respondents ----- Mr.L.H. Patil for Petitioner Mr. R.M. Patne- AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Ms. Jane Cox for Respondent o.3 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 15th February, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner is a society which is registered under the Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The members of the society purchased flats from the developer who constructed a building on the land and after the building was constructed, he sold the flats to flat purchasers, who then formed the co- 2 (WP 7277 of 2010) operative housing society. Flat No.603 was purchased by one Mr. Biyan Bocarro who purchased it by a registered agreement from the developer. The Respondent No.3 herein purchased the said flat No. 603 by a registered agreement of sale dated 30.10.2004 and, thereafter, applied for membership of the said society. The society rejected his application for membership and against the said order, the Respondent No.3 filed an application before the Deputy Registrar under section 23 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The contention of the society before the Deputy Registrar was that the erstwhile member of flat No. 603 Mr. . Biyan Bocarro had no authority or title to sell the terrace which was adjoining to the suit flat. On the other hand, it is the case of the Respondent No.3 that the said flat was purchased by his pre-decesser in title from the developer along with the adjoining terrace. The Deputy Register came to the conclusion that the issue about ownership and title of the terrace was a separate issue and, therefore, directed the Society to admit the Respondent No.3 as a member of the Society. The Impugned order was passed by the Deputy Registrar, the Society filed the dispute under section 91 of the said Act before the Co- 3 (WP 7277 of 2010) operative Court and the said dispute is still pending in the said Court. They also challenged the order of the Deputy Registrar by filing revision application before the Divisional Joint Registrar. The Divisional Joint Registrar confirmed the order of the Deputy Registrar. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Shri Patil, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the erstwhile member of flat No.603 had no authority to sell the terrace to Respondent No.3. He submitted that, therefore, both the Lower Authorities had erred in directing the society to admit the Respondent No.3 as the member of the Society. 4. In my view, the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be accepted. It is an admitted position that so far no interim orders have been passed by the Co-operative Court in the dispute which is filed by the society against the Respondent No.3 regarding the ownership of the terrace. Both the authorities below have rightly observed that issue of 4 (WP 7277 of 2010) ownership of the terrace and the issue of membership are two separate and distinct issues and the said dispute cannot be linked with the issue of granting membership. No case, therefore, is made out for interfering with the impugned order passed by the Lower Authorities while exercising the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It is always open for the Petitioner to approach the Co-operative Court and apply for any interim order, if so advised. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed and disposed of. The interim order passed by this Court dated 24.9.2010 is vacated. (V.M. KANADE J.)