Jurisdiction and maintainability in cooperative disputes depend on specific statutes and bylaws; a cooperative court retains authority to hear disputes related to member resolutions unless explicitly barred.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. The petitioner society, by the present petition, has called in question the order passed by the Co operative Appellate Court, whereby the petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking dismissal of the dispute was rejected. The application was founded on the contention that the issue of redevelopment does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Co operative Court.

2. Respondent No.1 instituted Dispute No. CC/III/49/2024 before the Co operative Court at Mumbai, along with an application seeking interim relief. The petitioner society filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Respondent No.1 filed his reply to the said application. The learned Judge of Co operative Court No.3, Mumbai, passed an order on the application dismissing dispute. Aggrieved thereby, Respondent No.1 preferred Appeal No.24 of 2024 challenging the order dated 17 May 2024. The learned Appellate Judge allowed Appeal No.24 of 2024 preferred by Respondent No.1. The order dated 17 May 2024 passed below Exhibit 18 in Dispute No. CC/III/49/2024 was set aside. In its place, the application filed by the petitioner at Exhibit 18 came to be rejected. The Appellate Court further directed the office of Co operative Court No.3, Mumbai, to restore the dispute to its original position. It is in these circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Mr. Khandeparkar learned advocate for petitioner submitted that Section 154B(1)(17) of the Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act, 1960 defines a housing society to mean a society whose object is to provide its members common amenities and services and also to demolish existing buildings and reconstruct or to construct additional tenements or premises by utilising the potential of the land. The definition, on its plain reading, includes demolition and reconstruction as one of the permissible objects of a housing society. The question that therefore arises is whether a housing society, which has not amended its bye laws to incorporate such an object, can be said to be carrying on the business of demolition and reconstruction merely because the Amendment Act of 2019 has come into force. The answer to the above question must necessarily be in the negative, for the reason that Section 154B(1)(17) is an enabling provision. The co operative movement is founded on voluntary association. The State cannot compel a society to amend its bye laws, as such compulsion would defeat the very purpose of its formation. The inclusion of demolition and reconstruction in the statutory definition only confers an option on housing societies to amend their objects, if they so choose. It does not operate as a mandate. This position is supported by the judgment in Happy Home Co operative Housing Society Limited v. State of Maharashtra , reported in (2016) 2 Bom CR 462 . The statutory definition must be read in the context of the object of a particular housing society. Unless the bye laws of the society contain demolition and reconstruction as one of its objects, such activity cannot be treated as its business. In the absence of such an object in the bye laws, redevelopment cannot be forced into the fold of the society’s business merely on the strength of the amended definition. Section 154B(31)(1) contains a saving clause in respect of existing bye laws. It expressly provides that bye laws in force on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act of 2019 shall continue to apply until they are expressly modified or amended. This makes it