-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 1034 of 2008 Worli Siddhivinayak SRA Coop. Housing Society Ltd. ..Petitioner vs. 1. The Asstt. Registrar Coop. Societies and anr. ..Respondents Ms.Rajani Iyyer, Sr.Advocate with Mr.H.V.Kode for petitioner. Mr.G.D.Uttangale i/b M/s Uttangale and Co. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr.Vijay Patil for intervenors. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 5th May, 2008 5th May, 2008 5th May, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Ms.Iyyer appearing for the petitioners states that the petitioners do not admit any of the statements and allegations made in the affidavit in reply dated 5th May, 2008 which is filed on behalf of respondent no.1. She proceeds on this basis. 2. In the light of this statement that time to file the rejoinder is refused. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the letters/orders dated 11th March, 2008 and 19th March, 2008. -2- 4. It is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the factual averments nor is it necessary to go into the rival contentions. 5. It appears from the record that on 11th March, 2008, the petitioners were directed by the Asstt. Registrar, Cooperative Societies (SRA), Mumbai that it should enroll eligible members and exclude non eligible members from the Register of Members. The communication further forwards to the petitioners society a list of members received from the Deputy Collector (SRA). The communication directs that the petitioners should prepare a list of eligible members and forward the said list/record to the Asstt. Registrar. The petitioners were directed to delete the names of non eligible members. The petitioners were directed to produce the record before the Assistant Registrar after the needful was done. 6. Thereafter, there is another communication dated 19th March, 2008 purporting to be an order under sec.79(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. It refers to the earlier communication and states that the petitioners have not abided by the directions issued therein and, therefore, the petitioners should carry out -3- the directions and enroll the eligible members and delete the names of non eligible members within a period of 8 days from the date of receipt of the communication/letter. 7. Ms.Iyyer contends that the matter is admittedly before the High Power Committee which has been directed to be constituted pursuant to the Full Bench decision of this Court. Further, she invites my attention to the order dated 5th February, 2008 which has been delivered in two appeals which have been lodged by Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC). MSRTC had challenged the orders of the learned single Judge dated 23rd July, 2004 by which it was directed that two persons namely Shivaji Krishna Zunjare and Sulakshana Suresh Bandekar are entitled to the allotted tenements. These tenements are to be allotted under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. After referring to the directions of SRA to decide the controversy with regard to eligibility of builders/developers or whether two additional tenements can be earmarked for MSRTC and non implementation of the said order and direction, the Division Bench ultimately referred to the Full Bench decision dated 1st November, 2007 in Writ Petition No..1326 of 2007 and connected matters and directed that the merits of the appeals need not be gone into. The dispute in the appeals and Writ -4- Petitions was referred to High Power Committee. The Division Bench kept open all the issues so as to enable the High Power Committee to consider the rival contentions. 8. The Division Bench noted that not only the original petitioners and respondents before the learned single Judge and MSRTC were before them, but builders and some slum dwellers have also moved the chamber summonses before it. All such parties were permitted by the Division Bench to appear before the High Power Committee. The Division Bench specifically stated that the Slum Dwellers whose names are appearing in Annexure II will also be entitled to appear before the High Power Committee. The Slum Dwellers who were members of the society as well as the slum dwellers who claimed to be eligible to be members of the society shall also be entitled to appear before the High Power Committee. The High Power Committee’s decision will be rendered in the manner set out by the Division Bench. The Division Bench directed that the structures at site should not be demolished and further observed that all issues and contentions are kept open to be adjudicated before the High Power Committee. It directed that the membership of the petitioners in the original petition from which the appeals arise will continue till High Power -5- Committee decides the entire issue. 9. The only contention raised before me by Mr.Uttangale is that even the Slum Rehabilitation Authority was directed to submit the report to the High Power Committee by the Division Bench. Thus, this report could not be submitted because, according to the Asstt. Registrar attached to Slum Rehabilitation Authority, it was noticed that there was dispute with regard to eligible and non eligible members. The Society was, therefore, directed to correct its record and enroll only eligible members and exclude non eligible members. Therefore, to enable the Asstt. Registrar to submit a report that the above communications have been issued and the SRA does not in any manner act contrary to the orders and directions of the Division Bench. This was to facilitate the submission of comprehensive report and SRA does not wish to take part in the dispute interse. It will also submit a report with regard to the builders who are eligible to develop the property. Thus, it was to elicit necessary information and also the records which are relevant for the purpose of decision of the High Power Committee that the impugned communication/letters have been addressed. 10. After the matter proceeded for some time and even -6- Mr.Patil appearing for the intervenors was heard I invited the attention of all concerned to the Division Bench directions and orders as passed from time to time. I emphasised the fact that for resolving all disputes and also expedite implementation of the SRA scheme that the directions have been issued by the Full Bench and High Power Committee has been constituted. High Power Committee consists of such persons and authorities who are capable of taking decision not only with regard to eligibility of slum dwellers but also developers. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to issue any directions in the present petition. It is not properto do so because High Power Committee should not be confronted with the conflicting and contradictory directions. Once the Division Bench has directed that all parties before it including those claiming to be eligible and alleged to be non eligible can appear before the High Power Committee, then, it is not necessary to issue any directions by this Court. The Asstt. Registrar also would have been well advised not to issue any communication to the petitioner but to submit a report on the basis of available record to the High Power Committee. Under the garb of submitting the report and eliciting information for that purpose the impugned communications may have been issued but now the issue of eligibility is sought to be raised afresh before -7- me. Ms.Iyer would urge that Division Bench directions are to decide all the issues including that of eligibility. Mr.Patil would urge that the Committee is required to determine the eligibility of only two persons, who were having dispute with MSRTC. In such circumstances, issue of eligibility of all slum dwellers for the subject project need not be reopened is the submission of Mr.Patil. 11. In my view, it would not be fair, just and proper to go into these contentions. Once Mr.Patil’s clients are not precluded from approaching the High Power Committee and making appropriate submissions so also the petitioner society. then, it would not be fair to render any decision before the High Power Committee goes into the rival contentions and issues. Equally, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority should not have directed the petitioner society to submit the record as corrected and in the form desired by it. The Asstt. Registrar was fully aware of the pendency of the matter before the High Power Committee. He should have placed before High Power Committee such documents and reports as are permissible in law and requested the Committee to decide the issue If he does not have the entire record with him he could have placed a report and stated that the same is interim and -8- not final. The final report can only be submitted after all concerned produce the record. In other words SRA could have requested the High Power Committee to issue directions as are necessary so as to comply with the orders and directions of the Division Bench. It could request the Committee to issue directions to all parties appearing before it and allow inspection of the same by all concerned. Instead of doing so Asstt. Registrar addressed the impugned communication which according to Ms.Iyyer unnecessarily creates a confusion and chaos. 12. Prima facie there is substance in this contention. In such circumstances, the Asstt. Registrar can proceed and submit such report as he can prepare and forward on the basis of the record available with him and seek appropriate directions and clarifications when the matters are placed before the High Power Committee. Similarly, the SRA is not precluded from requesting the High Power Committee to issue appropriate directions. Equally, it does not preclude the clients represented by Mr.Patil to urge before the High Power Committee that eligibility of slum dwellers whose names are included in Annexure II need not be reopened and the issue of eligibility of slum dwellers before the Division Bench should alone be examined. All contentions in that behalf are kept open by -9- the Division Bench so also by me. High Power Committee to consider them and render appropriate final conclusions. With these observations the petition is dismissed. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)