Advocates:
['ADV ASHWIN D BHOBE', '', 'ADV BHOBE SHRADHA SUBHASH', 'ADV JAGANNATH JAYANT MULGAONKAR', '', 'ADV PEARL ELSA REMEDIOS', 'ADV ANUSHA D KAISUKAR']

1 WP 554 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO. 554 OF 2016

Mr. Bobby Pandurang Nayak,

73 years of age,

Son of Pandurang Nayak,

r/o H. No.13/677/7 & 8,

“Laxmi Villa”

Tonca, Caranzalem-Goa.

Represented by his constituted attorney

Mr. K. Ramesh Nayak,

62 years of age,

Son of Sanjeev Nayak,

r/o Madkai, Mardol,

Ponda-Goa.

Constituted vide POA dated 16/4/2014

Executed before Notary D. P. Agni

And registered in his office under

No.8331/14 dated 16/04/2014. …. Petitioner

V e r s u s

1. The Laxmi Co-op Housing

Maintenance Society Ltd.,

Tonca, Caranzalem, Ilhas-Goa,

Through its Secretary,

Mr. Suhas Asnodkar,

Tonca, Caranzalem-Goa.

2. Mr. Keerti B. Nayak,

Major of age,

r/o H. No.270,

Bhagyalaxmi 8^th Cross,

28^th main, Sector -1,

HSR Layout, Bangalore 560102.

2 WP 554 2016

3. Ms. Gauri B. Nayak,

Major of age,

r/o H. No.270,

Bhagyalaxmi 8^th Cross,

28^th main, Section -1,

HSR Layout, Bangalore 560102. …. Respondents

Shri A. D. Bhobe with Ms. S. Bhobe, Advocates for the

Petitioners.

Shri J. P. Mulgaonkar with Shri J. J. Mulgaonkar,

Advocates for the Respondents.

CORAM: C. V. BHADANG, J.

DATE: 21ST July, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned

counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally by

consent of the parties.

2.

The challenge in this petition is to the order dated

1.2.2016 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative

Societies, by which the preliminary objection raised on behalf

of the petitioner to the maintainability of the dispute as

against the petitioner has been rejected.

3 WP 554 2016

3.

The first respondent which is a Maintenance

Society has filed a dispute before the Assistant Registrar of

Cooperative Societies against the petitioner and the

respondent nos.2 and 3. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a

member of the first respondent society. The respondent nos.

2 and 3, who are the members and flat owners are alleged to

have carried out certain illegal construction/additions which

according to the first respondent is without obtaining the no

objection certificate. It is claimed on behalf of the first

respondent that the action of the respondent nos.2 and 3, as

also the petitioner is illegal and against the interest of the

society.

4.

The petitioner raised an objection that he, not

being a member of the society, the dispute would not lie

within the purview and scope of the provisions of section 83

of the Goa Co operative Societies Act, 2001 (the Act, for

short). The first respondent opposed the preliminary

objection contending that the petitioner is the father and the

Karta of the HUF of which the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are

members and, as such, the dispute would lie within the

4 WP 554 2016

purview of section 83 of the said Act.

5.

A perusal of the impugned order would show that

the learned Asst. Registrar has come to the conclusion that

“the dispute is touching the management/business of the

society and therefore, is within the purview and scope of

provisions of section 83 of the said Act.” It has further been

held that as per section 86 of the Act, if the said Authority is

satisfied that any matter referred to it is a dispute within the

meaning of section 83, the Authority shall decide the dispute

or refer it for disposal to a nominee appointed by the

Registrar.

6.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that, the

petitioner not being a member, does not fall in any of the

categories as mentioned in section 83 (2) (a) to (e) of the

Act. It is submitted that the impugned order does not show

any consideration on this aspect.

7.

The learned counsel for the first respondent has

supported the impugned order. It is submitted that under

5 WP 554 2016

section 83(2) (b) not only a member or a past member but

a person claiming t