Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The order of deregistration of the cooperative housing society was challenged on the grounds that it was issued without proper legal basis and due process (!) (!) (!) .

2. The primary issue was whether the deregistration was justified under Section 21A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, which requires proof of misrepresentation or fraud, and adherence to procedural safeguards, including providing an opportunity to be heard (!) (!) (!) .

3. The court emphasized that the statutory right of flat purchasers to form cooperative societies is protected by law and cannot be overridden by contractual clauses or private agreements, especially those that attempt to delay or prevent society formation (!) (!) (!) .

4. The registration of the apex cooperative society by the societies themselves was found to be lawful, and the reliance on clauses in sale agreements that purportedly restrict federation until project completion was deemed invalid because such contractual provisions cannot negate statutory rights (!) (!) (!) .

5. The order of deregistration was found to be based on a misinterpretation of the law, particularly the improper invocation of Section 21A, which is meant for cases involving fraud or misrepresentation, not procedural irregularities or contractual disputes (!) (!) (!) .

6. Evidence suggesting tampering with official records, such as overwriting dates in the outward register and delayed dispatch of the deregistration order, raised questions about the authenticity and legality of the order (!) (!) .

7. The court held that the power under Section 21A is a quasi-judicial, punitive measure that must be exercised with caution, based on tangible evidence of misconduct, and not as a summary administrative action (!) (!) .

8. The actions taken by the developer, including filing for deregistration to frustrate statutory conveyance rights, were considered mala fide and contrary to the purpose of the laws designed to protect flat purchasers (!) (!) .

9. The court reaffirmed that statutory laws governing cooperative societies and flat purchaser rights are supreme and cannot be defeated by private agreements or contractual clauses (!) (!) .

10. Ultimately, the court found that the deregistration order was legally unsustainable due to lack of evidence of fraud, procedural irregularities, and misapplication of the law, leading to the quashing and setting aside of the order (!) (!) .

11. The court also highlighted the importance of safeguarding the statutory rights of flat purchasers and ensuring that the law is not misused by developers or other parties to undermine genuine cooperative efforts (!) (!) .

12. The decision underscores that the law favors the protection of cooperative societies formed in accordance with statutory procedures and that contractual clauses attempting to restrict or delay such formations are void to the extent they conflict with statutory rights (!) (!) .

13. The court upheld the principles that procedural irregularities alone do not amount to fraud and that deregistration should not be based on technical or procedural lapses unless supported by clear, cogent evidence of misconduct (!) (!) .

14. The order emphasizes that the role of the Registrar under the relevant statutes is to act based on substantive evidence, and improper or arbitrary use of powers undermines the legal framework intended to protect flat purchasers (!) (!) .

15. The overall conclusion is that the order of deregistration was issued in error, lacked proper legal foundation, and therefore, the writ petition challenging it is allowed, with the order being quashed and set aside (!) (!) .

These points collectively highlight the importance of adhering to statutory procedures, the primacy of law over contractual agreements, and the necessity of evidence-based decision-making in matters of deregistration of cooperative societies.