IMPORTANT POINT
The jurisdiction to de-register a cooperative society under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act is limited to matters directly related to the society's registration and operation, excluding issues of construction legality, which fall under the domain of planning authorities or civil courts.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assails an order dtd. 13/8/2019 passed by the Hon'ble Minister for Cooperation in Revision Application No. 450 of 2018 filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 whereby allowing the revision the petitioner-society has been ordered to be de-registered.

2. The land in question which houses the petitioner's building was allotted by CIDCO to one Smt. Babibai Joshi, which was sought to be developed by respondent no. 2-M/s. Yogesh Enterprises, who has subsequently assigned the development rights in favour of respondent no. 3. It appears that there was some dispute between respondent nos. 2 and 3. The construction of the building in question, however, was completed. The petitioner had insisted that the Society be formed by respondent no. 2, however, respondent No.2 failed to form a cooperative Society. Although the law would mandate a developer to form a cooperative society under the provisions of the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970. Consequently, the petitioner approached the Registrar of Cooperative Societies with a proposal to form a co-operative Society, in pursuance of which the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies granted registration to the petitioner on 14/2/2012.

3. Respondent no. 2 in view of the disputes with respondent no. 3, appears to have assailed the formation of the petitioner-Society as granted to the petitioner by the said order passed by the Deputy Registrar granting registration to the petitioner. At the behest of respondent no. 2, the proceedings reached the Hon'ble Minister in a revision filed under Sec. 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, which has been allowed by the impugned order.

4. Ms.Nichani, learned counsel for the petitioner in assailing the impugned order has submitted that the reasons on which the petitioner-society has been ordered to be de-registered are completely outside the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Minister. She has submitted that the reasons are inter alia that a building permission was not granted to complete the construction and that there was no completion certificate and on such reasons the petitioner-society has been de-registered. She would submit that the Hon'ble Minister could not have delved on such disputed issues on the legality of the construction of the building. It is submitted that such jurisdiction would vest only with the Civil Court or only the Competent Planning Authority can comment on the legality of construction. She submits that thus the impugned order is per se without jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside.

5. The Court's attention is drawn to the only reasons which is contained in the impugned order, which reads thus:

6. (Official translation of the original Marathi version)

<WXY>"During the course of the hearing, the Applicants have also brought to the notice the facts viz. while making registration of the Respondent No.2 Society viz. Airoli Neha Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Limited; Messrs S.B. Enterprises has not got sanctioned the plan for construction of the building of the said Society from Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and has carried out the construction unauthorisedly and without having got approval thereto. Moreover, it has not given to the Applicants the 49% built-up area as agreed to in the agreement and therefore, the Applicants have terminated the Development Agreement that had been entered into with it and had published a Public Notice in the newspaper stating therein that the Units in the building of the Respondent No.2 Society are unlawful and illegal and that therefore, the same should not be purchased. Moreover, because of this reason only, the Society has not even got the Deemed Conveyance. By bringing these facts to the notice, the Applicants have also brought to the notice that the registration of the Respondent No.2 Society is illegal and that its construction is unauthorised one. Moreover, the registration has been made witho