Disposed

Parle Palace Co-Op.Hou.Soc.Ltd v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Dec 2013WP/46/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition by directing the State Government to decide the petitioner society's representation relax the 75% consent requirement for redevelopment expeditiously, by 13th January 2014, without adjudicating the merits of the relaxation request.

What did the court decide?

Directing the State Government/competent authority to decide the petitioners' representation for relaxation of attendance conditions by 13th January 2014.

Parle Palace Co-Op.Hou.Soc.Ltd Vs the State of… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WPL. 3099-13

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L) No. 3099 OF 2013

¶5

Parle Palace CHS Ltd.

¶6

... Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents

¶9

Mr. Jahangir Altaf Khan, for the Petitioners. Mr. Milind More, AGP for Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & M. S. SONAK, JJ.

¶11

DATE : DECEMBER 13, 2013 PC.

¶12

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the Respondent. It is case of the Petitioners that the building in which they are residing is in completely dilapidated condition. It is submitted that in a meeting which was held to decide the question of redevelopment on 13^th May, 2013, only 60% of the members of the Society remained present. Petitioners have made a representation to the State Government for relaxation of condition of attendance of 75% members in the said meeting. A similar request has also been made by the Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies by a letter dated 24.6.2013. It is submitted that there are 17 occupants in the said building out of which 11 occupants are in favour of the redevelopment and the remaining 6 occupants are somehow not cooperating the Petitioners. According to the rules, 75% of the members i.e. 13 members out of 17, have to give the consent for

¶13

1 / 2

¶14

WPL. 3099-13

¶15

the redevelopment. Since other members are not cooperating, Petitioners have made a request in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules to relax the condition of Directive No. 10(c) of the Guidelines dated 3^rd January, 2009 framed by the Government of Maharashtra for redevelopment of the buildings. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners further submitted that in similar circumstances in respect of other Society, this condition has been relaxed by the State Government and the Hon'ble Minister of State for Cooperation has taken into consideration the situation and relaxation was granted by the State Government. In our view, since this being the only relief claimed by the Petitioners, petition can be conveniently disposed of by directing the Hon'ble Minister of State for Cooperation or any other competent authority to decide the representation made by the Petitioner dated 16^th May, 2013 as expeditiously as possible and in any case on or before 13^th January, 2014.

¶16

. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All contentions raised by the parties in this petition are kept open.

¶17

Vinayak Halemath

¶18

2 / 2

Parle Palace Co-Op.Hou.Soc.Ltd v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parle Palace Co-Op.Hou.Soc.Ltd v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sangita Sahebrao Bhalerao Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/s. Siroya Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs High Power Committee and Ors.

Shri Umanath Babu Shetty Vs Sau.Yashoda Sunde Shetty/M.C.G.B. and Anr. Applicant

The New Sagar Vihar Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Shri Sarzameen Khan Vs State of Maharashtra

M/S.Hotel Golden Crown Vs the M.B.R and R Board and 4 Ors.