:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.2304 OF 2008 PETITION NO.2304 OF 2008 PETITION NO.2304 OF 2008 Smt. Krishna H. Bajaj ..Petitioner V/s Bharatiya Bhavan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondents Mr.Vivek M. Sharma for the petitioner Ms. Vanita Kakar for the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 Mr. Vineet B. Naik i/b Mr. A.C. Sarkate for the respondent Nos. 8,9 and 10 Ms.S.D. Rayrikar,AGP for respondent No.11 CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : A.A. SAYED, J. A.A. SAYED, J. A.A. SAYED, J. DATE DATE DATE : 9TH JUNE, 2008 : 9TH JUNE, 2008 : 9TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. 1. This petition has been filed impugning the order dated 29th February, 2008 (Exh.’G’) passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies Appellate Court, whereby the Appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. The Appeal was directed against the order dated 16-02-2008, passed by the Co-operative Court, whereby the Application being Misc. Application No. 16/2008 of the petitioner for injunction interalia to prevent the Administrator of the Respondent No.1-Society from finalising the provisional list of members for ensuing election and :2: from restraining some of the respondent-members from exercising their voting rights in any of the General/Special/Emergency meeting of the members and from transferring their respective premises to other persons, came to be rejected. The petitioner also seeks to challenge the order dated 16-02-2008 (Exh.’F’) passed by Co-operative Court which held that the Co-operative Court would have no jurisdiction with regard to the validity of the membership of the Respondent- members, and the deletion of their names from Respondent No.1-Society’s record. 2. The petitioner, who is a member of the respondent No.1-Society filed a dispute being Dispute No. CC-1-209/2005 in July, 2005 before the Co-operative Court for a declaration that the transfer of certain flats in the respondent No.1-Society was illegal and to delete the names of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 from the record of the society. It is in this dispute that the above Mis.Application No. 16/2008 was filed by the petitioner for interim reliefs as aforesaid. :3: 3. After filing of this Misc. Application No. 16/2008 by the petitioner, some of the respondent- members filed two separate applications challenging the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court and raising preliminary issue in this regard. 4. The Misc. Application No.16/2008 was heard by the Co-operative Court and after considering the rival contentions of the parties the Co-operative Court vide its order dated 16-2-2008 held that no prima-facie case has been made out and the balance of convenience was not in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner would not suffer any irreparable loss if the application for injunction was rejected. The Co-operative Court also considered the fact that interim relief was sought in respect of members, whose transfer was effected about 6 years ago. The Co-operative Court came to the conclusion that there was no merit in this injunction application and the same came to be rejected. 5. The above order was challenged by filing an :4: Appeal before the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court. An Application in the above Appeal was filed for stay of the aforesaid order dated 16-02-2008 and to restrain the respondent members from exercising their voting rights and from holding of any position by them in the Managing Committee. The Appeal Court after considering the merits of the case, vide its order dated 29-02-2008 held that the balance of convenience is in favour of the respondents and the petitioner has failed to show any loss having caused to her and refused to grant any relief to the petitioner. This order dated 29-02-2008 (Exh. ’G’) is also impugned in this petition. 6. In so far as the two Applications filed by the some of the respondent members is concerned, the Co-operative Court by its order dated 16-2-2008 (Exh. ’F’) partly allowed the Application and held that the Co-operative Court has no jurisdiction to grant the reliefs to the petitioner as prayed in the dispute insofar as the validity of the membership of the respondent-members was concerned and observed that :5: the petitioner was required to go before the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies in that regard. This order dated 16-02-2008 (Exh.’F’) is also sought to be challenged in the above petition. Significantly this order (Exh.’F’) has not been challenged by the petitioner by filing any appeal before the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court and is now sought to be impugned in this petition. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned orders ( Exh. "F" and Exh. "G") referred to a decision in the case of Raj Ram Raj Ram Raj Ram Kumar Kumar Kumar Bhargava V.Union of India Bhargava V.Union of India Bhargava V.Union of India, reported in AIR 1988 S.C. 752. Placing reliance on the above decision the learned Counsel sought to argue that both the Co-operative Court as well as Registrar would have jurisdiction and that it was for the petitioner to choose as to which forum he wants to avail for filing the proceedings. 8. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record. :6: 9. Both the Co-operative Court and the Maharashtra State Co-operate Appellate Court have considered the merits of the case and have rightly rejected the interim application of the petitioner vide the impugned order (Exh."G"). The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any perversity in the impugned order (Exh."G"). It is also taken note of that the election of the respondent No.1- Society is already over and a new Managing Committee has come into being. It is further noted that the dispute was filed in the year 2005 and the application for interim relief is filed in the year 2008 and interalia seeks to restrain the respondent-members, some of whom are members for more that 12 years, from transferring their respective flats to other persons. Considering the facts of the case such relief cannot be granted to the petitioner, at least at this stage. Hence no fault can be found in the impugned order (Exh."G"). There is thus no illegality in the impugned order (Exh.’G’) so as to warrant any interference in exercising supervisory writ jurisdiction of this Court. :7: 10. In so far as challenge to the impugned order at Exh.’F’ is concerned, in my view it is not open for the petitioner to question this order in the above petition without having exhausted his remedy by filing further proceedings before the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court and therefore, this petition cannot be entertained insofar as the impugned order at Exh. "F" is concerned. That apart it is not understood as to how two separate orders Exh.’F’ and Exh.’G’ are sought to be challenged in one petition. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed with costs of Rs.1000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.1-Society within 3 weeks from the date of this order. ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)