JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties taken up for final disposal.

2. This petition is by Co-operative Housing Society against its members. A challenge is raised to the judgment and order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar dated 25.05.2018 in Revision Application No. 11/2017. By the impugned order the Divisional Joint Registrar has confirmed the order passed by respondent No. 3 dated 11.01.2017. The respondent No. 3 had passed an order in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 thereby allowed to raise construction of flatted building on a plot allotted to them.

3. The facts in short are that, the petitioner – society is a Housing Society having registration No. 161/67. The society purchased a land and divided the same in plots for its members. For the purpose of smooth running and conduct of the business of the society, it has its own bye-laws. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the transferees of one of the plots bearing plot No. 13 as the original allottee of plot No. 13 resigned from his membership and executed sale deed/lease deed dated 26.11.2012 along with construction thereon in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondents thereafter filed an application with the society requesting for permission to construct a flatted building. The society in view of bye-laws did not grant such permission. The respondents therefore approached respondent No. 3 – Taluka Deputy Registrar Co-operative Society. He allowed the application of the respondents and granted no objection to construct a flatted building only for residential purpose. It is further directed to make the flat owner as nominal member of the society. It is this order that came to be challenged by the petitioner by filing Revision Application No. 11/2017. It is held by the authorities that on earlier occasion the society had granted permission to some other members to construct flatted building. It is held that, the bye-law putting restriction on the members from making construction of flatted building is not legal. The said bye-law is not binding as the same is not approved by the authority.

4. The petitioner has thus approached this Court with the submissions that as per bye-laws of the society which are duly approved no member can be allowed to construct a flatted building. The byelaws were duly approved by the authority and thus the judgment and the order passed by both the authorities is illegal. It is specific case of the society that the bye-laws of the society were approved on 28.05.2015 and those are binding on all the members. On earlier occasion the respondents had sought permission to make construction of flatted building and the said was rejected and it was not challenged and therefore, the respondents could not have again filed an application seeking such permission. If at all, the respondents are aggrieved by the bye-law, they should have challenged the bye-law by filing a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (for short “MCS Act”) as the dispute falls under Section 91 (c) of the MCS Act.

5. In support of the petition, learned advocate Mr. Thombre for the petitioner submitted that, every member of the society is bound by byelaws. If at all, any member is aggrieved by any of the bye-laws, then proper remedy is to approach the Co-operative Court. In this case instead of challenging the bye-laws the respondents approached respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 could not have entertained such application. The respondent No. 3 exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by granting such permission by holding that the particular bye-law is not approved and has never come in force. No authority can go beyond bye-laws. In support of his submissions he relied upon the judgment in the case of Wadala Shri Ram Industrial Premises Co-operative Society Limited Vs. Kotecha and Company(M/s.) and others