Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents waive service. Since the issue involved in the writ petitions is in narrow compass, by consent of the learned Counsel and Senior Counsel appearing for the respective parties, writ petitions are forthwith taken up for final hearing.

2. As all these writ petitions are off-shoot of a common order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Mumbai Division, Mumbai [for short "the DJR"] in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 [for short "the MCS Act"] and the issue involved in the petitions being the same, these three petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, only the facts of Writ Petition No. 8410 of 2014 are being discussed in this common order.

4. By this writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 11th September 2014 passed by the DJR in Revision Application No.296 of 2014. By the said order, the DJR has set aside the letter dated 15th July 2014 issued by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, SRA, Mumbai.

5. The factual matrix giving rise to the present petition is thus:

[A] The Petitioner claims to be the meeting convener / organiser of the Hind Ekta SRA Griha Nirman Sanstha (Proposed) situated at Mahim, Mumbai. [for short "the proposed society"]. The property on which the structures of the members of the Petitioner are situated is declared as slum under the provisions of section 4 of The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance & Redevelopment) Act, 1971 [for short "the Slum Act"]. Thereafter the occupants of the property decided to redevelop the said property under the amended provisions of Regulation No.33(10) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 199] and formed proposed society.

[B] In the general body meeting of the proposed society held on 9th January 2006, Shree Nidhi Concept Realtors Pvt. Ltd. [for short "Shree Nidhi"] was appointed as developer for the implementation of said redevelopment scheme. Accordingly, development agreement and irrevocable power of attorney was executed by the proposed society in favour of Shrec Nidhi on 17th October 2006. It is the case of the Petitioner that though said Shree Nidhi was appointed as developer in the year 2006, not a single step was taken by Shree Nidhi till the year 2014, therefore all the members of the proposed society unanimously decided to terminate the agreement with Shree Nidhi as their developer and consequently passed a resolution on 31st May 2014 of termination, revocation, cancellation and withdrawal of the development agreement and power of attorney dated 17th October 2006 made in favour of Shree Nidhi. This decision was communicated by the proposed society to Shree Nidhi on 14th June 2014.

[C] In the genera] body meeting of the proposed society held on 22nd June 20]4, resolution was passed unanimously appointing Mis. SLK Buildcon Private Ltd. [for short "SLK"] as their new developer for the implementation of the slum redevelopment scheme of the said property. The said decision was immediately communicated to the Slum Development Authority [for short "the SRA"] and fresh development agreement and power of attorney was executed in favour of SLK.

[D] It is the case of the Petitioner that in the meanwhile, Respondent No.3 by using letter head of the proposed society fraudulently submitted an application to the office of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, SRA, Mumbai [for short "the AR-SRA"] for name reservation and shown himself to be the Chief Promoter.

[E] The Chief Executive officer of SRA [for short "the CEO"], by his letter dated 11th July 2014 directed the AR-SRA to hold a general body meeting of the proposed society. Accordingly, the ARSRA by his letter dated 15th July 2014 informed the proposed society to call for the g