The main legal point established in the judgment is that a member of a housing society is not liable for payment of dues after transferring the plot to another society, as per Section 73CA(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and Rule 58 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. By the present writ petition the petitioners are challenging the order dated 10.06.2022, passed by the Hon’ble Minister whereby the Hon’ble Minister was pleased to allow the revision petition filed by respondent no.6 herein and set aside the disqualification orders passed by the lower authorities i.e. Respondent No.4 / Joint Registrar dated 07.01.2022 & Respondent No.5 / Deputy Registrar dated 29.01.2021 and by the impugned order the Hon’ble Minister has held that respondent no.6 is not a defaulter of the respondent no.7 – housing society and thus not disqualified to be the member of the managing committee of the respondent no.7 – housing society.

3. The issue involved in the present writ petition is, whether respondent no.6 is disqualified under Section [73CA](1)(e) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 read with Rule 58 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, to be the member of the respondent no.7 committee, being a defaulter of the respondent no.7 housing society. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition can be summarized as under.

4. Respondent no.6 - Mr. Piyush Sethi is the member of respondent no.7 housing society. Elections to respondent no.7 housing society were held on 14.07.2016 and respondent no.6 came to be elected in the said elections. Respondent no.6 was holding 2 plots (plot no.5 and plot no.16) in the respondent no.7 housing society. Respondent no.6 constructed and sold a building consisting of 14 flats on plot no.16 conjointly with one Mr. Abhishek Deshmukh. The Co-operative society in the name of Swaroop Residency Flat Owners Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. was registered under Section 9(1) of the Act by all the flat purchaser of plot no.16.

5. An application for disqualification of respondent no.6 on 05.01.2019 was filed, contending therein that the said application was filed by the President of the society on behalf of respondent no.7 - society. In paragraph no.1 of the said application it is submitted as under ^^lnj x`gfuekZ.k laLFksus ljjpk vtZ laLFksps v/;{k ;kaP;korhus nk[ky dsysyk vkgs** [“Said application has been filed by the Housing Society on behalf of the President of the Housing Society.”]. It was contended in the application that for the period of 2016 to 2021, there was duly elected committee appointed on the society. It was mentioned in the application that respondent no.6, who is member of the managing committee is creating hurdles in the administration. It was further mentioned that that Rs.1,38,200/- is due from respondent no.6 and he has defaulted in the payment of said amount. That demand notices were issued on 11.01.2018 (notice no.108 of Rs.3,920/-), 07.07.2018 (notice no.193 of Rs.4,640/-), 07.07.2018 (notice no.194 of Rs.1,38,200/-) and again another notice dated 11.01.2018 (notice no.108/2018 of Rs.1,41,890/-).

6. It was contended in the application for disqualification that respondent no.6 has in partnership with Mr. A. S. Deshmukh, has constructed 14 flats on plot no.16 and has sold the flats, but the 14 flat owners are not made members of the society, but the 14 families are residing on the plot no.16 and there is strain on the infrastructure of the society. It is further submitted that plot no.5 is received by respondent no.6 by inheritance and plot no.16 was purchased in partnership and respondent no.6 had constructed and sold thereon 14 flats on plot no.16.

7. It was further submitted in the said application that on 03.12.2017, the resolution was taken to suspend respondent no.6 for a period of 3 years. Thus, it was prayed that looking into the behaviour of respondent no.6 and one Mr. Lalit Mali and they being defaulters of respondent no.7 society should be disqualified from the post of member of the managing committee of the cooperative society. It was prayed to declare respondent no.6 and one Mr. Mali disqualified. This application was filed before the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies.

8. Respon