1. Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to delete respondent no.6, the State of Maharashtra which

has been joined as a formal party. Leave granted. Respondent no.6 stands deleted.

2. Counsel for the parties handed in the minutes of order signed by the Advocates for the petitioner and by respondent nos. 1 to 5 individually. Minutes of order are taken on record and marked "X" for identification. We accept the minutes of order. We however record our reasons for the order.

3. Respondent no.2 is a Co-operative Housing Society, which at the relevant time had about 100 members. Respondent no.5 has allotted/ granted a lease of a plot of land situated at Nerul, Navi Mumbai being Plot No.11, Sector No. 42-A to the respondent no.2 for construction of flats for its members. On account of removal of three and resignation of two members of its Managing committee, the strength of the managing committee was reduced to 2, which was less than the quorum for the meetings of the managing committee. Respondent no.1, therefore, appointed respondent no.3 as an Administrator vide order dated 20th December 2006. By a subsequent order dated 20th February 2007 respondent no.3 was replaced by respondent no.4 as an Administrator of respondent no.2. On 20th February 2007 the Administrator wrote a letter to respondent no.5 - CIDCO stating that some of the members admitted by respondent no.2 were not residing in the State of Maharashtra for the minimum required period of 15 years, and therefore were not eligible for allotment of flats in the plot allotted by the CIDCO and were not eligible for becoming the members of respondent no.2 Society. Respondent no.5 accepted the said letter without any verification as to the eligibility of the members and by a letter dated 1st March 2007 informed the Administrator that "No Objection Certificate" granted by the CIDCO for the said members’ membership stood withdrawn. Respondent no.5, however, made it clear that if any dispute arose between the society and the members it would not be responsible for the same. This was probably done because respondent no.5 acted upon the letter of the Administrator that some of the members were not eligible for membership, without verification of the facts stated in the letter of the Administrator. Thereafter on 2nd March 2007, the Administrator wrote a letter to the 27 members that they had ceased to be the members of the society as they were not eligible to be the members of respondent no.2 - society.

4. The Administrator also proposed to expel 12 more members on certain other grounds. Accordingly, he issued a show cause notice dated 10th March 2007 to the 12 members asking them to show cause as to why they should not be expelled. He then convened a meeting of the General Body of respondent no.2 Society on 17th march 2007, inter alia to consider the issue of expulsion of the said 12 members. It is the case of the respondents that on 17th March 2007 a resolution was passed by the general body of respondent no.2- society expelling the said 12 members.

5. Though initially the writ petition was filed for some limited purposes, the petition has been amended to challenge the action of the Administrator declaring that 27 members had ceased to be the members of the respondent no.2 society and challenging the action of the Administrator expelling 12 members.

6. It appears that in the meeting of 17th March 2007 apart from expelling 12 members it was resolved to change the Architect / Developer who was to construct the building and to appoint a new Architect / Developer in his place. The respondent no.2 society also purpotedly resolved to grant additional FSI not exceeding 0.5 times of the then sanctioned FSI to the new Architect / Developer in

consideration of his not claiming any escalation in the cost of construction. The resolution also purpotedly authorised the Administrator to do all acts that were necessary for the aforesaid purpose. That resolution is also impugned in this petition.

7