Remanded

Ratna Co-Op. Housing Society Thr Chairman v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Apr 2013WP/728/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging orders regarding membership dispute in a housing society. Court quashed lower authorities' orders for failing to decide definite factum and remanded matter back for fresh decision after hearing parties. Petitioners have filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the r

What did the court decide?

Orders of lower authorities quashed; matter remanded to Respondent No. 3 for fresh decision after hearing parties.

Ratna Co-Op. Housing Society Thr Chairman Vs the State… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 wp 728.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 728 OF 2013

¶4

Ratna Co-op. Housing Society Through Chairman .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶7

Shri P. R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri V. B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri C. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4.

¶8

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 08TH APRIL, 2013.

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

. The present petitioner had filed an application bearing Misc. Application No. 952/2011 challenging the membership of the present respondent No. 4. The present respondent No. 3 allowed the said application holding that the present respondent No. 4 could not produce the proof of membership and held that prima facie the respondent No. 4 does not appear to be a member. Against the said order, the present respondent No. 4 filed a revision before the respondent No. 2. The same is allowed.

¶11

2 wp 728.13

¶12

Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition.

¶13

Shri Katneshwarkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the respondent No. 4 could not produce original document of allotment letter, the sale deed and the share certificate. The xerox copies of all these documents were produced by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the respondent No. 3 after taking into consideration the entire record and the fact that there was no issuance of share certificate and allotment letter had rightly come to the conclusion that the present respondent No. 4 is not a valid member of the present petitioner.

¶14

According to the learned counsel, the revisional authority has failed to consider, nor has properly dealt with the reasonings given by the respondent No. 3.

¶15

Shri Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that it is the respondent No. 4 who has filed on record the copies of the sale deed, allotment letter and share certificate which goes to show that the respondent No. 4 is valid member of the society and also President. According to the

¶16

3 wp 728.13

¶17

learned counsel, the respondent No. 3 had failed to consider the documents filed by the present respondent No. 4 and the contentions raised therein. The learned counsel submits that Shashidhar Chate has resigned.

¶18

With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the orders passed by the authorities. The respondent No. 3 in his order had observed that prima facie it does not appear that the present respondent No. 4 is a member. When the matter is being finally decided, the authority has to come to a definite conclusion and cannot base its findings on prima facie acceptance of a case or otherwise. When deciding the case finally the subject of prima facie coming to a conclusion does not arise. The order is not in consonance with the legal principles. The Court has to come to a definite conclusion. The respondent No. 3 was expected to arrive at a definite conclusion about the factum of the membership of the respondent No. 4. The revisional authority also while passing the order has observed that the present respondent No. 3 may call for documents and verify the same. The respondent No. 3 can take decision on the application dated 15.03.2011 filed by the petitioner. In fact, the respondent No. 2 while passing such an order was remanding the matter back. It ought to have

¶19

4 wp 728.13

¶20

passed a clear and unequivocal order in that regard. It ought to have directed the respondent No. 3 to decide the said application afresh. The decision given by the respondent No. 3 was on the basis of an application dated 15.03.2011. Both the authorities without coming to a positive conclusion have passed the orders.

¶21

In the light of the above, the orders passed by both the authorities are quashed and set aside and the parties are relegated before the respondent No. 3, who shall decide the said proceedings afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to put forth their case and the document if any and decide the same afresh. The parties shall appear before the respondent No. 2 on 29.04.2013. The respondent No. 3 shall thereafter decide the said proceedings afresh expeditiously. The Record and Proceedings be sent back immediately. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions.

¶22

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶23

bsb/April 13

Ratna Co-Op. Housing Society Thr Chairman v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratna Co-Op. Housing Society Thr Chairman v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Somnath Ramchandra Shiral Vs the State of Maharashtra

Narayan Yadav Tijare Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.

Premraj Budha Patil Vs Range Foresh Officer and Ors.

Naseem Begum Sk. Afsar and Others Vs Saheb Bi Sk. Jani and Others

Dr. Vandana Prashant Choudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anohter

Laxman Uddhav Pawar Vs Rashida Khanam Maksoodkhan