-: 1 :- wp-4632/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4632 OF 2010 Iv Y. Co-operative Hsg. Society Ltd. ..Petitioner. Versus Mrs. Sugraha Rahul Mishra & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. P. P. Kulkarni for the petitioner. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : August 11, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petition arises out from the membership dispute under section 22 of the M.C.S. Act, 1960. The petitioner is a co-operative housing society. One Vinita Haladankar was the member of petitioner society. She was the owner of tenement no.1/3 on ground floor of petitioner-society. This tenement was sold to respondent nos.1 & 2 by the registered sale deed on 23rd June 2004. Respondent no.1 thereafter preferred an application on 18th May 2005 to the petitioner society requesting it to enrol her as member. The petitioner society did not take any action for 3 months. Therefore, respondent no.1 preferred an appeal u/s 22(3) of the MCS Act before the Dy. Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Said appeal was allowed and respondent no.1 was declared to be deemed member. This srp -: 2 :- wp-4632/10 order is confirmed by the Divisional Joint Registrar in revision at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition. 3. The fact that respondent nos.1 & 2 have purchased tenement no. 1/3 from Vinita Haladankar is not in dispute. The fact that the application was made by respondent no.1 on 18th May 2005 for enrollment as member with the petitioner society is also not disputed. Further there is no dispute that the petitioner – society has not taken action for 3 months on the application of respondent no.1. In these facts and circumstances, I find that the Dy. Registrar has correctly approached the matter and deemed membership is granted to respondent no.1. The Joint Registrar after re-appreciating all the facts, has confirmed this order. 4. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said tenement was purchased by respondent nos.1 & 2 jointly and therefore in the absence of consent from respondent no.2, respondent no.1 could not be enrolled. This objection has no merit as respondent no.1 purchased the said tenement for herself and on behalf of respondent no.2 as her constituted attorney. Respondent no.2 has not raised any objection for the enrollment of respondent no.1 as member. Thus, the petitioner on its own cannot take objection about the consent of respondent no.2. Taking overall view of the matter, I do not find any -: 3 :- wp-4632/10 merit in the petition so as to enable me to exercise writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is therefore dismissed. (R.V. MORE, J.)