Khwaja Garib Nawaz Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd. Thr Its Chief Promoter v. Divisional Joint Registrar Co Op Soc And ORS
28-wp-633-2024.doc Nikita
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.633 OF 2024 Khwaja Garib Nawaz Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Thr. Its Chief Promoter ... Petitioner V/s.
Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies and Ors.
... Respondents NIKITA KAILAS DARADE NIKITA KAILAS DARADE Date: 2024.01.16 16:56:01 +0530 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.1491 OF 2024 Budhpur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.
... Applicant In the matter between Khwaja Garib Nawaz Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Thr. Its Chief Promoter ... Petitioner V/s.
Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies and Ors.
... Respondents Mr. Vijay Kurle a/w Ravindra Bhosale i/b Mr. Manohar V. Shetty for the Petitioner.
Mrs. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the State/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Ms. Neha Nagotanekar for Respondent No.4.
Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh a/w Ms. Aayushi Gohil a/w Mr. Umair Merchant, for the Intervener.
CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED :JANUARY 16, 2024 P.C.:
1.
The challenge in this petition is to the order passed by the Appellate Authority in exercise of power under Section 152 of
28-wp-633-2024.doc Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Wherein, the application for reservation of name of opening of bank account filed by the appellant has been rejected.
1.
The order impugned in the appeal was passed in exercise of power under Section 9 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Against such order, the aggrieved person has a remedy under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Against the decision of Divisional Joint Registrar, under Section 152, the aggrieved person has remedy under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. 2.
The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shireen Sami Gadiali and Anr. Vs. Spenta Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2011) 3 Mah. LJ. 486 held that the remedy under Section 154 can be invoke by the parties as of right. Therefore, it is held that exercise of power by the Writ Court in extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction is uncalled for, unless the case is covered by the exceptions laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Whirpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the impugned order by way of revision before the State government.
1.
With the said liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of.
2.
In view of disposal of writ petition, the intervention application stands disposed of. No costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)