The retrospective effect of the amendment to Section 2 of the Act validated the registration made by the majority of the owners, and the impugned order was reasoned and did not breach principles of natural justice.

1. The Court :- An order passed by the competent authority exercising jurisdiction under the West Bengal Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners are the owners of the flats in an apartment building as also the tenants in respect of another portion thereof. He draws the attention of the Court to the provision of the West Bengal Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, particularly, Section 2 thereof as it is stood in 2013. He submits that, in terms of Section 2 of the Act of 1972 then obtaining, all the owners of the apartment building were required to make a joint application for the purpose of registration of such building under the Act of 1972. The petitioners did not join in making such application. There are other owners of different portion of such apartment building who also did not join in making of the application. Consequently, the application made by the private respondents and the subsequent registration granted by the authorities on the strength of such application are bad in law and should be declared to do so. The initial registration of the association being incorrectly done, no benefit can be derived out of such registration. Such registration should be declared as cancelled. The petitioners had made a representation dated January 15, 2015 to the authorities raising various issues. The issues raised by the petitioners in the representation dated January 15, 2015 to the competent authority were not considered. Consequently, the petitioners had to move before the High Court by way of a writ petition being WP No. 461 of 2015 which was disposed of by an order dated July 10, 2015. By such order the competent authority was directed to consider and decide such representation in accordance with law. The competent authority has chosen not to deal with the issues raised by the petitioner in such representation in the impugned order. The impugned order of the competent authority is, therefore, perverse. The same is liable to be set aside.

3. Relying upon 2014 (2) CHN (Cal) 186 [Debdas Banerjee-Versus-State of West Bengal] learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that, Section 2 of the Act of 1972 was amended subsequently. As on the date of the application for registration, Section 2 of the Act of 1972 required all the owners of the apartment building to join in the process of registration. That being the position in law, and the petitioners not having joined the application for registration, such registration is required to be set aside.

4. The writ petition is opposed by the private respondent. Learned Advocate for the private respondent submits that, Section 2 of the Act of 1972 was subsequently amended by a Gazette Notification dated December 7, 2015 with retrospective effect from July 5, 1972. By virtue of such amendment, majority of the owners of the apartment have been permitted to make the application for registration. Therefore, on the date of the application for registration, so far as the association is concerned, there is no infirmity the impugned order. It is reasoned. The petitioners were heard before the impugned order was passed. Therefore, no interference is called for by the Writ Court.

5. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.

6. The petitioners are the owners of an apartment. They are tenants of another portion. In an apartment building, as an owners, they are liable to pay the maintenance charges in respect of the building. They are also required to join in the process of the registration of the association under the Act of 1972. Apparently, they have chosen not to do so. Finding that the petitioners did not join the association initially, and in order to comply with the Act of 1972, a request was made to the private respondent to make over a statement containing the amount that the petitioners owe on account of maintenance ch