Taken out from the final hearing board. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2 By this common Judgment, I am inclined to dispose of all these Writ Petitions filed by the members of Respondent No.5 Society, who were expelled from the membership and the said decision of the Society was approved under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, the MCS Act). It is further confirmed by the Appellate Authorities, therefore, all these Writ Petitions.

3 There is no serious dispute to the fact that the Petitioners become members of Respondent No.5Society by paying necessary and requisite charges towards the entrance fees, share money, donation etc. and in pursuance to that, their names were duly recorded in “I” & “J” Register of the Society some time in the year 197980. Respondent No.5Society entered into the Development Agreement. The Petitioners' names were included in the list of members of the Society, annexed to agreement dated 31 March 1981 itself. The respective Petitioners made requisite payment to the Developer/Contractor towards the construction cost of the flats. The same was even confirmed by the Society on 30 March 1984. Further payments were also made when actual construction of building No.2 commenced. Because of the dispute between the members of Respondent No.5 and the Developer/Contractor, the Petitioners filed Disputes in the year 1987 against the Society. On the date of impugned orders, those disputes were pending. The Society, even withdrew the Appeals challenging injunction order dated 30 May 1987 against them from dispossessing the Petitioners from the flat alloted. That was done in the year 1990.

4 The Society, as stated, illegally and without following due procedure in the year 1994, deleted the names of the Petitioners from the membership list and records and created third party membership rights. The Petitioners, therefore, lodged a complaint in the year 2000 and an inquiry was held under Section 83 of the MCS Act. It was held by the Enquiry Officer on 24 September 2001, that this action/transfer of membership, including of all the Petitioners, were illegal and required a corrective step. The election disputes were also pending at the relevant time.

5 In the Managing Committee meeting of the Society dated 31 July 2005, the issue of expulsion of the Petitioners was considered. On 4 October 2005, the requisite notices were stated to be issued to the Petitioners on the old and incomplete addresses. On the same day, the paper publication in two newspapers “Nav Shakti” and “Free Press Journal” were also issued. The statement is made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, on instructions, that those two newspapers were never subscribed by them and they never read those two papers, at the relevant time and till this date also. The notices were then again sought to be served by courier services on 19 October 2005. The packets addressed to the Petitioners referring to notice dated 4 October 2005, returned unserved with remarks “require building name, Plot Nos., short and insufficient address etc.”. The fact of return of those letters, is not in dispute or at least there is no further material to justify that the Society, before taking further action, duly served the requisite notices of membership expulsion. In the Special General Body Meeting of Society dated 5 November 2005, therefore, the Petitioners, for want of service/notice/communication not appeared and/or participated. In the Special General Body Meeting dated 5 November 2005, it is stated that one member Vipul Dharod, the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2855 of 2008, was present at about 11.10 a.m. The reason for his attendance on that date, in any way, not sufficient to deny and/or overlook the factual situation of non-receipt and/or non-service of requisite notices, as recorded above. All these Petitioners case, who are expelled from membership based upon the mandatory un-served notices, in my view, t