Membership in co-operative housing societies cannot be denied without timely communication of the decision, and disputes regarding dues do not preclude admission.

JUDGMENT :

N. J. JAMADAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. The Petitioner takes exception to a judgment and order dated 2^nd September, 2024 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai, in Revision Application No.38 of 2024, whereby the revision preferred by the Petitioner against an order dated 4^th December, 2023 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (R2) under Section 22 (2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (“the Act, 1960”), came to be dismissed affirming the said order passed by respondent No.2.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts leading to this petition can be summarised as under:

2.1 The Petitioner is a Housing Co-operative Society registered under the Act, 1960. Mr. Kanayalal Merani and Mrs. Rakhi Merani were the members of the Petitioner Society and occupants of Flat No.11. Punjab National Bank, which had created security interest over Flat No.11, resorted to enforce the security interest by auction sale of the said flat. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 claimed to have purchased the said flat in an online auction sale, on 30^th August, 2018. The physical possession of Flat No.11 was delivered to respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 30^th December, 2018.

2.2 Respondent No.3 and 4 claimed to have applied for the membership of the Petitioner Society and the transfer of shares in their name. Asserting that despite repeated requests the Petitioner Society committed default in admitting respondent Nos.3 and 4 as the members of the Petitioner Society, respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed an application before the Deputy Registrar under Section 22 (2) of the Act, 1960.

2.3 The Deputy Registrar issued notices to the Petitioner. However, the Petitioner did not appear and participate in the said proceeding before the Deputy Registrar.

2.4 Eventually, by an order dated 4^th December, 2023, the Deputy Registrar was persuaded to allow the application and direct the Petitioner to admit respondent Nos.3 and 4 as the members of the Petitioner Society and make entries in the register of members and issue the share certificate.

2.5 Being aggrieved, the Petitioner Society preferred a revision before the Joint Registrar. It was contended on behalf of the Petitioner that since respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not paid the dues of the Society qua Flat No.11, the membership of the Society cannot be granted to Respondent Nos.3 and 4. If respondent Nos.3 and 4 clear the dues, as claimed by the Society, the latter would grant the membership.

2.6 The Joint Registrar did not find any substance in the challenge to the order of the Deputy Registrar, mounted on behalf of the Petitioner. The Joint Registrar after adverting to the controversy on facts as regards the liability of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the quantum of the outstanding dues claimed by the Society, dismissed the revision opining, inter alia, that the Petitioner Society was always at liberty to invoke the remedies under Sections 91 , 101 or 154B-29 of the Act, 1960, to recover the amount towards maintenance and other society charges.

4. Being further aggrieved, the Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction.

5. I have heard Mr. Ashok Satpute, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. P. V. Nelson Rajan, the learned AGP for the State – respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms. Arati Gunjikar, respondent No.3 in-person, at some length. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the material on record.

6. Mr. Satpute, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the authorities under the Act, 1960 committed a manifest error in directing the Petitioner to admit the respondent Nos.3 and 4 as the members of the Petitioner Society in teeth of an express statutory provision which warrants the payment of the dues of the housing society before grant of membership. Mr. Satpute invited the attention of the Court to the provisions contained in Section 154B-7 subsume