IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that parking charges are recoverable under Section 154B-29 of the MCS Act, despite the existence of a dispute mechanism under Section 91.

JUDGMENT :

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

1. By the present Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of order dated 29th February 2024 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies (East and West Suburbs), Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai in Application No. SRA/CO/OW/2024/1158 (Exh.A/Page 20 to 23 of the Writ Petition). By the said order, Recovery Certificate under Section 154B-29 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (“the MCS Act”) has been issued for an amount of Rs.98,620/- in favour of the Respondent No. 3-society and against the Petitioner.

2. On the earlier date, Mr. Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner raised several contentions including that the Assistant Registrar has no jurisdiction to deal with the Application for issuance of Recovery Certificate under Section 154B-29 of the MCS Act, as the alleged default is regarding the charges/penalty charges with respect to parking space. He submitted that proper remedy is to file dispute under Section 91 of the MCS Act. To substantiate said contention, he relied on Bye-Law No. 174(B)(iv) of Model Bye-laws of the Co-operative Housing Society Limited (“Model Bye-Laws”). He further submits that another member Ms. Anita Madan is staying out of India and therefore, she has permitted the Petitioner to occupy the parking space allotted to her. It is his submission that the parking charges are also levied to said member-Ms. Anita Madan and as the Petitioner is occupying the parking slot allotted to said Anita Madan, the society is imposing penalty charges on the Petitioner. He submitted that the impugned order passed without taking into consideration these aspects is required to be quashed and set aside.

3. Although, Ms. Paswan, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 raised the issue regarding maintainability of the present Writ Petition on the ground that there is an alternate remedy of Revision under Section 154 of the MCS Act, however, as the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Assistant Registrar is raised by the Petitioner, the same is required to be decided. Ms. Paswan, learned Counsel also raised some other contentions.

4. Ms. Sawant, learned AGP, supported the impugned order.

5. As the contention regarding availability of an alternate remedy of Revision as under Section 154 of the MCS Act is raised by learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and as sub-Section (2A) of Section 154 of the MCS Act provides that 50% of amount as awarded in the Recovery Certificate should be deposited with the society, by order dated 24th July 2024, the Petitioner has been directed to deposit 50% amount with the Society as directed to be paid by the impugned Recovery Certificate. Mr. Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that the said order has been complied with.

6. It is necessary to consider the submission of Mr. Shukla, learned Counsel of the Petitioner that recovery proceedings under Section 154B-29 of the MCS Act are not maintainable with respect to charges relating to parking and only recourse is to file dispute under Section 91 of the MCS Act. As already noted to substantiate said contention, Mr. Shukla, has relied on Bye-Law No. 174(B)(iv) of the Model Bye-Laws.

7. Relevant portion of Bye-Law No. 174 of the Model Bye-Laws is as follows:

“174. If the Member/Members are not satisfied by the decision of the Committee, or does not receive any communication from the committee within 15 days, the complainant Member may approach below mentioned Competent Authority.

(A) THE REGISTRAR

Complaints to Registrar

Complaints to be made to the Registrar, Matters pertaining to following issues:

(i)

..........

(xxiv)

(B) CO-OPERATIVE COURT

Matters for Co-operative court

Disputes between the Members and/or the Members and Society, which fall under Section 91 of the MCS Act, 1960 such as:

Disputes pertaining to:

(i) Resolution of the Managing C