Disposed

Vilasben Bharat Jani and Bharta L Jani and 5 Others v. Divisional Joint Regsitrar and 3 Others

Bombay HC30 Oct 2017WP/2097/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a cooperative society order, the court resolved an inconsistency where petitioners had a pending membership application and were simultaneously directed to submit one. The court guided the parties to ensure a fresh, undisputed application was considered solely on merits within a stipulated timeframe.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of by directing the Deputy Registrar to consider a fresh application filed by the petitioners on merits without reference to prior orders, with both parties bound by specific

Vilasben Bharat Jani and Bharta L Jani… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

13-WP2097-17.DOC

¶2

Atul

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2097 OF 2017

¶4

Vilasben Bharat Jani & Bharati L Jani & Ors…Petitioners
Versus
Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, …Respondents
Mumbai Division, Mumbai & Ors

¶5

Mr Altaf Khan, for the Petitioners.
Mrs Uma Palsule Desai, AGP for Respondent No. 1-State.
Mr M Chaudhari, for Respondent No. 3.

¶6

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 30th October 2017

¶7

PC:-

¶8

1.Rule. By consent returnable forthwith. Learned Advocates for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 waive service. By consent, taken up for
hearing and final disposal.

¶9

2.The writ petition is directed against an order dated 31st
March 2016 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, Mumbai Division, Mumbai. The Divisional Joint
Registrar allowed several revisn applications (Nos. 264 of 2015, 266
of 2015, 267 of 2015, 268 of 2015, 271 of 2015, 272 of 2015 and 273
of 2015) in favour of the 3rd Respondent-society. A copy of the
order of the Divisional Joint Registrar is at page 23 (Exhibit “A”).

¶10

Page 1 of 4
30th October 2017

¶11

13-WP2097-17.DOC

¶12

These revision applications were brought by the 3rd Respondent-
society challenging an order of 29th May 2015 passed by the Deputy
Registrar, Cooperative Societies, MHADA under Section 23(2) of
the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960.

¶13

3.For the purposes of the present petition, the point of
immediate concern is in regard to the Writ Petitioners’ application
for membership of the 3rd Respondent-society. It seems that the
Deputy Registrar allowed that application but in doing so, in the
order impugned before the Divisional Joint Registrar, also in the
operative portion directed the Writ Petitioners to submit an
application for membership of the society. There were other points
before the Divisional Joint Registrar, but for the present purposes
this is sufficient. Clearly, the Deputy Registrar could not have
simultaneously allowed the application for membership and directed
that the application for membership be filed. This is what the
Divisional Joint Registrar found in his order (pages 30-31).

¶14

4.In and of itself there is no reason to interfere with the order
simply because the Deputy Registrar’s order is clearly erroneous.
However, equity demands that the interest of the Writ Petitioners be
protected. They cannot be left in this ambiguous situation where,
pursuant to the Deputy Registrar’s order they have indeed filed a
fresh application, but the order allowing the previous application has
been set aside. The result is inconsistent. They have been effectively
denied membership but yet have a pending application for
membership. This is also not a situation that serves the purpose of
the 3rd Respondent-society because it finds itself in an equally

¶15

Page 2 of 4
30th October 2017

¶16

13-WP2097-17.DOC

¶17

uncertain and unstable position in regard to the membership
application.

¶18

5. The writ petition can be disposed of in the following terms:

¶19

(a) The previous application purportedly allowed by the Deputy Registrar is substituted by the fresh application filed in June 2015. That application is said to have been filed after the Deputy Registrar’s order dated 29th May 2015. The society has not yet communicated its decision on that application.

¶20

(b) By way of abandon caution, if that application has not yet been filed by the Writ Petitioners, they will do so within a period of two weeks from today ensuring that the application is complete in all respects.

¶21

(c) The society will consider the application on merits without regard to the previous history of the matter or any of the orders and will communicate its decision within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶22

(d) If the Society’s decision is against the writ Petitioners, no further action will be taken by the society against the Petitioners for a period of three weeks thereafter.

¶23

(e) The writ Petitioners will then be entitled to approach the Deputy Registrar afresh against the adverse

¶24

Page 3 of 4
30th October 2017

¶25

13-WP2097-17.DOC

¶26

decision if any of the 3rd Respondent-society on the
fresh application.

¶27

(f) Should such an application be made before the Deputy Registrar, it will be decided within a period of six weeks from the date of its filing. It will be dealt with on merits uninfluenced by any order passed in this matter.

¶28

6. All rival rights and contentions are expressly kept open.

¶29

7. The writ petition is disposed of in these terms. There will be no order as to costs.

¶30

(G. S. PATEL, J)

¶31

Page 4 of 4

¶32

30th October 2017

Vilasben Bharat Jani and Bharta L Jani and 5 Others v. Divisional Joint Regsitrar and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vilasben Bharat Jani and Bharta L Jani and 5 Others v. Divisional Joint Regsitrar and 3 Others

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

Neeta Sanghavi and Anr. Vs Harkisondas v. Sanghvi and 4 Ors. and Bakula Dharmdas Sanghavi (Prop. Defe. No 2)

Nabi Ahmed Mohamed Vasin Vs Sabira W/O Mohamed Siddique and Anr.

M/S. Hasmukhrai and Company a Partnership Firm Vs Municipal Corporation of

Rishika Chandrapratap Patil Vs the Brihan Mumbai Mahanagar Palika and 4 Others

The David Sasoon Library and Reading Room Vs M/S. Lund and Blockley Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Suvarna Murlidhar Badve and Ors. Vs Satish Vallabh Katekar