By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order passed by the respondent No. 1 dated 10th August, 2017 allowing the Intervention Application No. 30 of 2017 filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the Application No. 4973 of 2016.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the deceased Mr. Amar Menghraj Shroff who was the brother of the petitioner had applied as tenant in common for five shares with one Mr. Laxminarain V. Shroff bearing Nos. 166 to 170 in respect of the Flat No. 35 on the 9th floor, Guide Building, Nepean Sea Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai 400 006. The said deceased Mr. Amar Menghraj Shroff along with Mr. Laxminarain V. Shroff filed a nomination form with the respondent No. 2 society on 2nd August, 1975 and thereby nominating the petitioner as nominee for 50% share of the said Mr. Amar Menghraj Shroff in the said premises. In the said nomination form insofar as nominees are concerned, the name of the respondent No. 3 was mentioned whereas the name of the petitioner as nominee was at serial No. 2. Both the original members expired.

3. The petitioner made an application under section 30(1) read with section 23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 on 29th December, 2016 before the Society relating to the transfer of 50% shares of the deceased in the said premises in favour of the petitioner and also requested to make necessary changes in the share certificate. The society did not give any response to the said application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly filed an appeal under section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Societies Act, 1960 before the respondent No. 1. In the said appeal, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed intervention application on 23rd March, 2017 on various grounds. The said intervention application was opposed by the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 passed a non-speaking order in the said intervention application and allowed the said application. The said order is impugned by the petitioner in this writ petition.

4. Mr. Khandeparkar, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the nomination form signed by the said two deceased who were the members each having 50% shares in the said flat and the shares and also showing the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 as the nominees. He submits that since the society did not take any action in the said application filed by the petitioner, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and the same was maintainable.

5. Learned counsel also invited my attention to the intervention application filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and would submit that the application for intervention was made by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on the ground that they were claiming exclusive rights in the said flat and the said shares based on an alleged oral family arrangement entered into in the year 1974. He submits that the respondent No. 1 while deciding an appeal under section 23(2) of the Act cannot decide the rival claims of title in respect of the said flat and the shares. The respondent No. 1 therefore could not have allowed the said intervention application. The respondent No. 1 was therefore neither necessary nor a proper party to the said appeal filed under section 23(2) of the said Act.

6. Mr. Bhadrashete, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 invited my attention to the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 23(2) of the Act and would submit that the petitioner had not only claimed the transmission of the share as nominee of the deceased Mr. Amar Menghraj Shroff but has also claimed the ownership in respect of the said 50% shares. It is submitted by the learned counsel that even if the application filed under section 30 of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rule, 1961 was not entertained by the respondent No. 2 society within the time prescribed, an appeal under section