JUDGMENT - Dr. B.P. SARAF, J.:---By this appeal the appellant Co-operative Housing Society seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 2nd March 1998 rejecting the writ petition of the appellant society against the order of the Minister of State (Co-operation) by which he allowed the revision application of the respondent No. 5 Pradeep Kamat and directed the appellant society to register the nomination of Mr. Kamat as nominee of the original member late Shri H.K. Desai.

2.The material facts of the case, giving rise to this appeat, are as follows :

The appellant is a Co-operative Housing Society. One of its members, Shri H.K, Desai, made a nomination on 7th December 1979 in favour of his wife Smt. Nalini.The said nomination was entered by the appellant society in its nomination register. On 15th June 1992, Mr. Desai sent another nomination in the prescribed form to the appellant society in favour of respondent No. 5 Shri Pradeep Kamat. Mr. Desai died on 15th July 1992. The society refused to register the nomination of Mr. Kamat on the ground, inter alia, that he was not a relative of the original member Mr. Desai. Mr. Kamat appealed to the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies against the decision of the appellant society not to register the nomination. The Deputy Registrar rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the above order, Mr. Kamat approached the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The Divisional Joint Registrar also rejected the application on the ground that Mr. Kamat was not the natural heir of the original member Mr. Desai and confirmed the order of the Deputy Registrar. Against the above order, the nominee Mr. Kamat approached the State Government under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ("Act'). Before the Minister of State (Co-operation), who heard the revision application, it was contended on behalf of Mr. Kamat that under section 30 of the Act it was not necessary that the nominee should be a relative of the member. The Minister accepted the above contention and allowed the revision application. The appellant society challenged the decision of the Minister before this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Judge rejected the writ petition by following the Single Judge decision of this Court in (Gopal Vishnu Ghatnekar v. Madhukar Vishnu Ghatnekai)1, reported in 1981 Bom.C.R. 1010 : A.I.R. 1982 Bombay 482. Aggrieved by the above order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant society is before us by way of this appeal.

3.We have heard Mr. D.H. Mehta, learned Counsel for the appellant, who submits that the nomination in this case is contrary to the requirements of section 30 of the Act. According to him, section 30 of the Act does not contemplate nomination in favour of any person other than the heir or legal representatives of a member. Our attention was drawn by the learned Counsel to the fact that there was an earlier

nomination in favour of the wife of the original member. According to him, unless the subsequent nomination in favour of respondent No. 5 is recorded by the appellant society in its ragister, it would not be operative. There is no dispute in this case about the fact that the subsequent nomination in favour of respondent No. 5 was submitted to the appellant society during the life time of the member. The learned Counsel could not tell us as to why the society did not record it despite it being filed by the original member. He, however, reiterated his contention that section 30 of the Act contemplates nomination only in favour of heir or legal representatives of the deceased member and not in favour of strangers.

4.We have carefully considered the submissions of Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the appellant. Section 30 of the Act, which deals with transfer of interest on the death of a member, reads as under :

"30. Transfer of interest on death of member

(1) On the death of a member of a society, the s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document