Promoters must disclose the precise nature of the organization (cooperative society or otherwise) in agreements, and unilateral declarations that lack collective consent do not comply with statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT:

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners call in question the order passed by Respondent No.1. By the said order, the revision application filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed. The revisional authority thereby confirmed the order registering Respondent No.4 as a cooperative housing society under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

2. The facts leading to the present petition are not in dispute. By a development agreement dated 2 December 2000, the owners of the property granted development rights to the petitioners. The property bears CTS No. 322 and 322 by 1 to 10. It is situated at Shantilal Mody Road, off Village Malad, Kandivali West, Mumbai. On or about 24 March 2003, the petitioners executed several agreements for sale in favour of Respondent Nos.5 to 46. Under these agreements, the petitioners reserved to themselves the discretion to form either a condominium or a cooperative housing society in respect of the said property.

3. According to the petitioners, on 18 December 2004, the petitioners along with all the owners executed a declaration as contemplated under Section 2 read with Section 11 of the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970. On 18 February 2005, the said declaration was registered with the Sub Registrar of Assurances under Registration No. 0850 of 2005. The bye laws of the condominium were annexed to the declaration. Thereafter, on 31 August 2005, the declaration deed was again registered with the Sub Registrar of Assurances. On 14 June 2005, the petitioners informed Respondent Nos.5 to 46 about the execution and registration of the declaration under the MAO Act. On 16 June 2005, the petitioners also informed Respondent No.3 that a condominium had been formed in respect of the said property.

4. On 21 December 2006, Respondent No.11, acting on his own, submitted an application to Respondent No.3 for registration of Respondent No.4 as a cooperative society under the MCS Act. Acting on this application, Respondent No.3 passed an order on 21 February 2007 registering Respondent No.4 society and issued a registration certificate in its favour.

5. On 16 March 2007, the petitioners preferred Appeal No.49 of 2007 before Respondent No.2 under Section 152 of the MCS Act. The appeal challenged the registration of Respondent No.4 society. The petitioners also sought interim protection. On 17 March 2007, Respondent No.2 granted an order of status quo. However, by order dated 26 July 2011, Respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal. The appellate authority held that the declaration relied upon by the petitioners was not executed by all the owners of the property.

6. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed Revision Application No.964 of 2011 before Respondent No.1. By order dated 20 September 2012, Respondent No.1 dismissed the revision application and confirmed the registration of Respondent No.4 society. The petitioners challenged the said order before this Court. By order dated 3 April 2014, this Court set aside the order dated 20 September 2012 and remanded the matter to Respondent No.1 for a fresh decision. After remand, Respondent No.1 heard the parties on 1 July 2014 and 10 July 2014. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 28 August 2018, Respondent No.1 again dismissed the revision application and confirmed the order registering Respondent No.4 society. This order is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ pet