Advocates:
['ADV ARUNKUMAR V NIGALYE', '', 'ADV SHIVAJI BHANGUI', 'ADV SUSAN LINHARES', '', 'ADV AJIT R KANTAK']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO. 530 OF 2016

M/S. PALMAR PREMISES HOLDERS

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP.

THR. ITS TREASURER,PURSHOTTAM J.

KAMAT.

... Petitioner

Versus

MR. UTTAM KUNDAIKAR AND ANR.

... Respondent

Shri Arunkumar V. Nigalye, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Ms. Susan Linhares, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Ms. R. Kantak, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

Coram:- C. V. BHADANG, J.

Date:-

3rd October, 2016

ORAL ORDER :

Heard Shri Nigalye, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms.

Susan Linhares, the learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and Ms. R.

Kantak, the learned Counsel for respondent no.2.

2. By this petition, the petitioner-Society is challenging the

judgment and order dated 14/03/2016 passed by the Cooperative

Tribunal in Cooperative Appeal No.6/2016. By the impugned order,

the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated

30/06/2015 passed by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative

Societies has been dismissed. The Assistant Registrar by the order

dated 30/06/2015 has directed the petitioner to transfer the share

certificate in the name of the respondent no.1 (the applicant before

the Assistant Registrar) in terms of Section 109(1) of the Goa

Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (Act, for short).

2

WP/530/2016

3. The brief facts are that the respondent no.2 was allotted with

three shops bearing no.GS-16, GS-17 and GS-18 in the Goa Housing

Board Residential cum Commercial Complex which are premises

belonging to the petitioner Society. The respondent no.2 herein was

allotted 150 shares bearing distinctive numbers 1101 to 1250 of the

petitioner Society. The second respondent has sold the aforesaid

three shops with prior permission of the petitioner, as required under

Section 108(d) of the Act. The second respondent applied for

permission of the petitioner for effecting inter connectivity of the

three shops to start a business. The petitioner has granted No

Objection Certificate for the same on 20/01/2010. It is contended

that in the name of effecting inter connectivity the first petitioner has

removed the partition walls between the shops thereby causing

structural changes. It is also contended that respondents did not

obtain any No Objection Certificate from the statutory authority like

the Village Panchayat. The petitioner advised the respondent no.2 to

procure a letter from the Goa Housing Board about the structural

stability. The Housing Board vide certificate dated 26/10/2010 has

certified that the use of the shops for establishment of a gym will not

affect the structural stability of the premises. It appears that

subsequently Madhava Kamat and Associates have also certified that

the structural stability of the building will not be endangered due to

removal of the masonary walls of the shops provided that no damage

has occurred to any structural load bearing elements such as

column/beam, etc. The petitioner, however, did not take any steps

3

WP/530/2016

for transfer of the share certificate in favour of the respondent no.1.

This prompted the respondent no.1 to approach the Assistant

Registrar, seeking a direction to the petitioner to transfer the share

certificate. It appears that the Assistant Registrar had issued a notice

to the petitioner on 25/06/2013, for the purposes of facilitating his

office to decide whether the dispute referred falls within the meaning

and purview of Section 83 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act,

2001. The Assistant Registrar by an order dated 16/09/2014

disallowed the objection raised by the petitioner and held that the

dispute is one which falls or touches the business of the Society and

the dispute was accordingly admitted. Subsequently, by an order

dated 30/06/2015, the petitioner has been directed to transfer the

share certificate which order has been confirmed by the Cooperative

Tribunal.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions.

Firstly, it is contended that under Rule 1