ORDER :- By the present petition, the petitioner impugns the order of the Revisional Authority dated 26-5-2003 passed in Revision Application No. 244 of 2003. By the said order, the Revisional Authority reversed the order of the Appellate Authority dated 20-3-2002 which had rejected the appeal preferred by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The relevant law is the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act as also the certified by-laws of the Petitioner Society.

2. An appeal was preferred by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as petitioner herein by letter dated 20-9-2001 addressed to the Advocate for the said Respondents had rejected their application for membership. It was the case of the said Respondents that they had applied for membership by letter dated 22-3-2001. Along with letter they had submitted the necessary documents. The letter contains several grounds as to why membership of the said respondents has been rejected. Aggrieved by the same, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 preferred the appeal. The Appellate authority dismissed the appeal, against which the Respondent preferred a revision application.

3. The revisional authority while reversing the order of the appellate authority held that the Respondent No. 6 vide letters dated 25-9-1999 and 12-1-2001 had informed the society of her intention to sell the flat in dispute including the car parking space and that the Respondents society did not send its reply to the same. The Revisional Authority held that the Respondent No. 2 was in possession and enjoyment of Flat No. 41 and open parking space allotted to the said flat, which she sold to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 before this Court and that the inclusion of the parking space in the agreement does not necessarily become a justifying ground for rejection of the membership of applicant. The Revisional Authority also noted that because of filing of criminal complaint against Mr. K. G. Agarwal who is Hon. Secretary of the Society was bent upon to reject the membership of applicant. The Revisional Authority also held that the Petitioner Society herein had failed to produce any supporting documentary evidence that the applicants are engaged in illegal business/profession and further that the said respondents (Respondent Nos. 4 and 5) were ready and willing to comply with the deficiencies. It was also noted that the society had also requested the Social Services Branch, Crime Branch Crawford Market and Colaba Police Station to enquire about Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 but had failed to produce any negative remarks from the authority. In these, circumstances, the Revisional Authority held that the petitioner society and its managing committee has wrongly with a view to harass the applicants rejected their membership and accordingly set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and directed the Petitioner society to admit Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as its members in terms set out in the order. That order is dated 26-5-2003. The order of this Court dated 18-8-2003 shows that the status quo was ordered till further orders.

4. At the hearing of this petition, on behalf of the petitioner society, their learned counsel has formulated the grounds of challenge as under :

(a) that no N.O.C. was taken from the Petitioner Society before the sale of the flat.

(b) the documents filed for membership were incomplete;

(c) The car parking space could not have been transferred as it does not belong to the erstwhile member; and

(d) Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were undesirable persons.

(e) It was also pointed out that the Revisional Authority had misread the evidence, it is pointed out that the complaint filed to the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 against Agarwal, the Secretary of the society was much after the membership was rejected. In spite of that the Revisional Authority has held that the membership was rejected because of the complaint.

5. In support of the contentions, learned counsel has drawn my attention to the agreement entered into between Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on the one

Click Here to Read the rest of this document