Dismissed¶20

Vinayak Vasant Govitrikar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Jan 2025WP/19383/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cooperative society; locus standi of members; minority members (36 of 200); redevelopment of society property; member loses individuality qua society; Daman Singh v. State of Punjab (1985) 2 SCC 670 para 11; writ petition dismissed in limine; Bombay High Court; Maharashtra; interim application disposed; request for time to challenge order rejected.

What did the court decide?

In view of the Constitution Bench holding in Daman Singh v. State of Punjab, (1985) 2 SCC 670 (para 11), the Court held that the Petitioners did not have any locus standi to seek the reliefs as prayed for, and dismissed the petition in limine. ¶20

Vinayak Vasant Govitrikar and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Osk 15-Wp-19383-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 19383 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 884 OF 2025

¶5

Vinayak Vasant Govitrikar & Ors.

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

V/s.

¶8

State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi for Petitioners. Ms. M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Mandar Limaye for Respondent No.2-TMC.

¶11

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ. DATE : 14^th January 2025.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

It is an admitted fact on record that, the proposed Respondent No.3 Society is having 200 members. The Society is intending to redevelop its property. These 36 Petitioners approximately constitute 1/5^th of the total members of the Society. The Petitioners are having grievance against the functioning and/or the decisions taken by the Society for redeveloping its property.

¶14

The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Daman Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (1985) 2 SCC 670, in para No.11, has held as under :-

¶15

1/2

¶16

Osk 15-Wp-19383-2024.doc

¶17

… … … We have no hesitation in rejecting this submission

¶18

also. Once a person becomes a member of a cooperative society, he loses his individuality qua the society and he has no independent rights expect those given to him by the statute and the by-laws. He must act and speak through the society or rather, the society alone can act and speak

¶19

for him qua rights or duties of the society as a body. … …

¶20

In view thereof, we are of the confirmed opinion that, the Petitioners did not have any locus standi to seek the reliefs as prayed for. Petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

¶21

3.1) In view of disposal of Petition, Interim Application (St.) No. 884 of 2025 pending therein, does not survive and is accordingly disposed off.

¶22

At this stage, Mr. Saraogi, learned counsel appearing for Petitioners submitted that, seven days period may be granted to the Petitioners to challenge the present Order.

¶23

4.1) Taking into consideration the aforenoted observations, we are not inclined to grant said reliefs to the Petitioners. The said request is accordingly rejected.

¶24

( KAMAL KHATA, J. ) ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )

¶25

Digitally signed by OMKAR SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN Date: 2025.01.16 14:29:51 +0530

¶26

OMKAR SHIVAHAR KUMBHAKARN

¶27

2/2

Vinayak Vasant Govitrikar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinayak Vasant Govitrikar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jairam Damji Hingu vs the State of Maharashtra

Vinod Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Popatlal Jethalal Shah vs the Chief Executive Officer Slum Rehabilitation Authority

Vincent Lewis vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Arun Yadav vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through the Designated Officer

Nisha Popatlal Shah vs the Chief Executive Offcier Slum Rehabilitation Authority