( 1 ) HEARD Shri Madkholkar, Advocate for the petitioner and Smt. Taiwade, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents No. 1 to 3. Nobody appears for respondents No. 4 to 10.

( 2 ) BY this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a Society registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies act, challenges the order dated 11/26-4-1991 passed by the Deputy Registrar, co-operative Societies (City) Nagpur, in Appeal under section 23 of the maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). By the impugned order, the said authority has allowed the appeal preferred by the present respondents No. 4 to 10 and directed the petitioner - Society to admit them as its members.

( 3 ) SHRI Madkholkar, Advocate for the petitioner has made three grievances in relation to impugned order. He contends that there cannot be any enrolment of members in excess of plots available with the society. He contends that at the relevant time, no plots were available with the Society and all plots were allotted and as such there was no question of giving enrolment to any person as new members. He further states that the appellate authority has overlooked the fact that unamended provisions of section 22 of the Act were prevalent when the controversy involved in this writ petition arose. Lastly, he contends that by taking recourse to amended provisions, the appellate authority has rejuvenated dead rights. He states that these respondents No. 4 to 10 moved application for membership on 13-10-1980 and as there was no communication on those applications to the respondents from society, as per provisions of section 22 (2) of the Act then in operation, the applications stood rejected after expiry of three months from 30-10-1980. He, therefore, contends that after 30-1-1981, no application for membership by any of the respondents was pending with the society and the membership stood declined to these respondents. He points out that provisions of section 22 (2)of the Act, have been materially altered in 1986 and instead of earlier presumption of "deemed rejection", now the presumption is of "deemed admission". He contends that the appellate authority has applied this amended provision which has come into force after 1986 to the facts at hand and this amendment has been applied retrospectively though the amending statute expressly states that it is prospective. He, thereafter, relies upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Atomica Co-op Housing Society Ltd. , Bombay vs. B. R. Ballal, reported at 1988 C. T. J. 292, to substantiate his contention that the Coo-perative Society cannot enrol members in excess of plots available with it for allotment to its members. He contends that the appeal as filed under section 23 of the Act was also delayed because the appeal came to be filed sometime in the year 1990 after the respondents received the communication dated 4-11-1990 from the Administrator of the petitioner-Society. He contends that the delay in filing the appeal from 31-1-1981 till the year 1990 has not been explained at all.

( 4 ) AS against this, Smt. Taiwade, Assistant Government Pleader states that the petitioner - Society itself has sent a communication to respondents No. 4 to 10 and the appeal has been filed thereafter. She contends that therefore, there is no question of delay and as the appellate authority has been approached in view of the communication dated 4-11-1990, law prevailing on that date has been correctly applied. She further contends that the communication of rejection for membership was must and as there was no communication, the respondents were right in filing appeal only after they received the communication. She, therefore, contends that there is no retrospective application of law as alleged and the appellate authority has correctly exercised the jurisdiction, hence, no interference in writ petition is warranted in this case.

( 5 ) THE perusal of the or