The court affirmed that a promoter must be included as a member for cooperative society registration under the MOFA Act, ensuring compliance with statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT :

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

1. The petitioner takes exception to an order dated 20th August 2019 passed by the Minister for Cooperation, Mantralaya, Mumbai, granting registration under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Manager and Transfer) Act, 1963 (“MOFA Act” for short) in respect of plot bearing No.4, Sector 19, Vashi, Navi Mumbai in favour of respondent No.1.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows: Respondent No.6-CIDCO executed registered lease deeds in favour of the petitioner in respect of plot No.14, Sector 19, Vashi, Navi Mumbai on 5th March 2001 and 20th February 2004. Thereafter, by resolution dated 21st August 2004, the petitioner resolved to confer the right to transfer commercial shops in favour of its members. On 24th August 2004, the petitioner executed a development agreement in favour of respondent No.3-developer for a consideration of Rs.52 lakh and 178 shops/units free of cost. The development agreement expressly permitted the developer to sell 59 units in the open market. Subsequently, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, on 24th December 2004, granted building permission to construct a multi-storied building over the said plot, and on 2nd July 2007, issued the occupation certificate for the building. On 12th April 2008, the general body of the petitioner decided to allot shops/units in favour of third parties.

3. On the failure of respondent No.3 to form a society, respondent No.1, having secured the minimum number of persons required to constitute a co-operative society who had taken flats, filed an application with the Registrar for registration of the society under Section 10 of the MOFA Act. The Registrar, by order dated 7th March 2004, rejected the proposal of respondent No.1. In response, respondent No.1 filed an appeal, which was allowed on 12th September 2014, directing the grant of registration in its favour. Consequently, on 17th September 2014, respondent No.1-society was duly registered.

4. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.9921 of 2019 before this Court, and on 27th November 2014, this Court directed that the petitioner be afforded an opportunity for hearing regarding the registration of respondent No.1-society. In pursuance of that direction, the Appellate Authority allowed the petitioner’s application for intervention and similarly admitted the application of CIDCO for intervention. However, the Appellate Authority, by order dated 31st March 2016, set aside the order of registration. In response thereto, respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.4914 of 2018 in this Court, and on 31st May 2016, this Court set aside the order dated 31st March 2016 and directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on or before 17th January 2019.

5. The Appellate Authority, having granted an opportunity of hearing to respondent No.1, the petitioner, respondent No.3, and CIDCO, allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1. In doing so, it set aside the earlier order of refusal to grant registration and confirmed the order dated 16th September 2014 granting registration in favour of respondent No.1. Consequently, the petitioner has resorted to the present writ petition.

6. Mr. Godbole, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that, as per the occupation certificate, the building comprises 237