Membership in cooperative societies must strictly adhere to the sanctioned plan, and no membership can exceed the statutory limits established by law.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. Both writ petitions arise from proceedings under Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The Deputy Registrar granted membership to respondent No.3 in relation to a room of 250 square feet situated on the North East side of the building of respondent No.4 society. The petitioners challenge this decision.

2. The petitioners place the following facts on record. Respondent No.4 was registered as a housing society on 2 May 1996. Six of the seven original occupants paid the required amounts. These six, including the purchaser of respondent No.5, became entitled to be members of respondent No.4 society. The petitioners are subsequent purchasers. The society issued share certificates in their favour. According to the petitioners, flat No.5 admeasures 2742 square feet of carpet area along with a servant room of 150 square feet on the ground floor situated on the North East corner of the property and two open parking spaces. The managing committee of respondent No.4 consisted of six members since inception.

3. The petitioners state that Mr Rajendra Agarwal expressed interest in purchasing flat No.7. This flat belongs to the society. The issue was discussed in a committee meeting held on 17 December 2024. In that meeting, the majority of the committee, including the petitioners, decided that flat No.7 should not be sold and must remain with the society. The petitioners allege that this decision led to complaints filed at the instance of Mr Rajendra Agarwal. These complaints resulted in appointment of an Officer over the society.

4. During the period when the Administrator was in charge, flat No.5 was sold to respondent No.5 through a sale deed dated 28 May 2025. There was one share certificate in respect of flat No.5 which included the 150 square foot servant room. Soon after the Administrator took charge, on 11 March 2025, Mr Shashin Patel and Ms Bhavini Patel who were tenants in flat No.7 applied for membership. On 17 March 2025, the Administrator informed them that he had no authority to grant membership. The tenants filed an appeal under Section 23 of the Act before respondent No.2. The Deputy Registrar directed the Administrator to convene a meeting of the members to consider the question of their membership.

5. Respondent No.1 set aside this order on 23 April 2025 and granted membership to the tenants. The petitioners challenged this order by filing a writ petition. This Court granted interim relief on 21 July 2025 and stayed the election process. On 19 November 2025, this Court partly allowed the writ petition. The order dated 23 April 2025 was set aside. The admission of the tenants as members and all consequential actions flowing from that order were also quashed.

6. While Writ Petition No.9470 of 2025 was pending, the Administrator issued a provisional voters list on 3 July 2025 for the election of the managing committee. The list showed nine members instead of the original six. The three additional names were Mr Kushal Agarwal, Ms Prachi Agarwal who is respondent No.3, and Capital Mind. The petitioners state that for the first time they realised that certain premises were being split, sold or transferred without authority to create new memberships and to influence the forthcoming elections and the management of the societ