HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 19463 OF 2023

O R D E R :

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the

3^rd respondent - District Cooperative Officer/Registrar under the Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995 to register the 1st petitioner society and to declare constitution of the 4th respondent society as illegal and to quash the Registration Certificate issued in favour of the 4^th respondent.

2. The case of petitioners is that they are all residents of housing community consisting of 120 Villas under the name and style of ‘Sark One Villas’ situated at Kondakal Village, Mokila Road, Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The residents of the above villas, initially, registered a society for maintenance of their villas in the locality under the Public Societies Act, however, such registration was challenged in Writ Petition No. 8856 of 2022 wherein this Court vide order dated 01.09.2022 quashed registration. In view of the said order and with a view to have a body to maintain the residential locality, petitioners intended to register a Mutually Aided Cooperative Society under the MACS Act, 1995 and towards the same, they submitted an Application on 28.01.2023 to the 3^rd respondent. It is the case of petitioners that no action was taken thereon for registration and in the meantime, they were also made aware of the fact that at the instance of about 11 villa owners, the 4th respondent society was registered on 18.11.2022 without the knowledge of or intimation to other villa owners. It is the case of petitioners that the very constitution and registration of the 4^th respondent Society is illegal, inasmuch as the requirements under Section 4 of the Act are not met by the applicants while registering the 4th respondent Society and on that ground, registration ought not to have been entertained by the 3^rd respondent and it ought to be quashed now.

3. Respondents 1 to 3 filed a common counter affidavit and the 4^th respondent filed a separate counter affidavit. Replies were filed by the petitioners to the counter affidavits. The case of Respondents 1 to 3 is that registration Application of petitioners cannot be entertained as they have already registered the 4^th respondent society and there cannot be another society for maintenance of the same residential locality. It is also their case that Application of petitioners was acted upon and in view of the objection, a query was raised by the 3rd respondent and the same was communicated to petitioners. In the reply filed by the petitioners, it is contended that there was no such communication from Respondents 1 to 3 and that even otherwise, it is settled law that multiple registered societies can exist in the same sphere of operation. Petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court in Sri Sri Kalakuteers Apartment Flat Owners Maintenance Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Limited Vs. State of Telangana¹. The case of the 4^th respondent is that Writ Petition is not maintainable inasmuch as it is a private dispute and the Tribunal under the MACS Act, 1995 has jurisdiction to entertain the disputes raised in the instant Writ Petition. Further it is also their case that as the 1st petitioner is not a registered society, Writ Petition is not maintainable. Petitioners in their reply stated that they have a legal right under the 1995 Act to associate themselves with likeminded people and that for that purpose, they can establish and register a Mutually-Aided Cooperative Society under the said Act. It is also stated that petitioners 1 to 9 are individuals who have submitted the Application and they have a vested right under the Act to get the 1^st petitioner registered, therefore, the instant writ petition is maintainable.

4. Heard Sri P. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri M. Venkata Divakar, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Praveen Vyapari, learned counsel