Bombay High Court
Cosmopolitan Iii Co-Operative Housing ... vs Hon.Minister Co-Operation Marketing ... on 14 February, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:7337
WP-2183-2021 (final).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2183 OF 2021
Cosmopolitan III Co-operative Housing Society ]
Ltd. ]
A society registered under the Maharashtra Co- ]
operative Societies Act, 1960 having its address ]
at Punit Park, Plot No. 182/C, Sector 17, Nerul ]
(East), Navi Mumbai - 400 706. ] ...Petitioner.
Versus
1. Hon'ble Minister, Co-operation, Marketing, ]
Government of Maharashtra, ]
Having address at 3rd Floor, Mantralaya ]
Annexe, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai - ]
400032. ]
2. Cosmopolitan II Co-operative Housing ]
Society Ltd. ]
A society registered under the Maharashtra ]
Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 having its ]
address at Punit Park, Plot No. 182/C, Sector ]
17, Nerul (East), Navi Mumbai - 400 706. ]
3. The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies ]
(CIDCO) ]
Having address at City and Industrial ]
Development Corporation (Maharashtra) ]
Ltd., Raigad Bhavan, 3rd Floor, C.B.D. Belapur, ]
Navi Mumbai - 400 614. ]
4. B. D. Ahire, Administrator of Cosmopolitan ]
II Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ]
A society registered under the Maharashtra ]
Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 having its ]
address at Punit Park, Plot No. 182/C, Sector ]
17, Nerul (East), Navi Mumbai - 400 706. ]
5. D. R. Patil, Authorized Officer of ]
Cosmopolitan III Co-operative Housing ]
Society Ltd. ]
A society registered under the Maharashtra ]
Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 having its ]
Sairaj 1 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2025 07:32:19 :::
WP-2183-2021 (final).doc
address at Punit Park, Plot No.182/C, Sector ]
17, Nerul (East), Navi Mumbai - 400 706. ]
6. City and Industrial Development ]
Corporation (CIDCO) ]
having office at CIDCO Bhawan, CBD ]
Belapur, Navi Mumbai. ] ...Respondents.
------------
Mr. P. N. Patil i/b Mr. Laxman S. Deshmukh for the Petitioner.
Mr. B. B. Sharma (through VC) for Respondent No.6-CIDCO.
Mr. Shahaji Shinde, Addl. Govt. Pleader and Mr. S. L. Babar, AGP for Respondent-
State.
Mr. Rohan Cama, Mr. Akshay Deshmukh, Mr. Bhavesh Joshi, Ms. Mayureshwari
Korday i/b Mr. Akshay Deshmukh for Respondent No.2.
------------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Reserved on : 17th December, 2024.
Pronounced on : 14th February, 2025.
Judgment :
1. Rule. With consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing.
2. By this petition, exception is taken to order dated 4 th February, 2021 passed by the Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation and Marketing setting aside the order dated 26 th June, 2020 passed by the Joint Registrar, City and Industrial Development Corporation, Navi Mumbai ordering the bifurcation of Respondent No.2-Society in exercise of powers under Section 18(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 [for short, "MCS Act"] read with Rule 17 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 [for short, "MCS Rules"].
3. The facts as discerned from the record is that the Respondent Sairaj 2 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2025 07:32:19 ::: WP-2183-2021 (final).doc No. 2-Society is situated on plot of land admeasuring 7178.85 square meters located at Nerul, Navi Mumbai. The layout comprises of a building known as "Cosmopolitan II" comprising of 'A to D Wing', 27 Row houses and 20 shops. The constructed area of Cosmopolitan II is 5307.104 square meters, row houses is 1415.610 square meters and shops is 449.652 square meters. The owners of the row houses and the shops were initially members of Respondent No. 2-Society, which had total of 156 members comprising of 109 residents of the building and owners of 27 row houses and 20 shop owners.
4. These 27 row house owners and 20 shop owners moved an Application on 2nd August, 2019, before the Joint Registrar seeking bifurcation of Respondent No.2-Society seeking seperation of the row houses and shops from the main building by forming Cosmopolitan-III Co-operative Housing Society Limited. The bifurcation came to be resisted by Respondent No.2-Society. Vide order dated 26 th June, 2020, the Joint Registrar allowed the Application for bifurcation permitting the owners of the row houses and shops to register a different organization for its 47 members known as Cosmopolitan-III Co-
operative Housing Society Limited. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner- Society was issued 'Certificate of Registration'.
5. Against the order of bifurcation, Respondent No.2-Society filed an appeal under Section 152 of the MCS Act before Respondent No.1 Sairaj 3 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2025 07:32:19 ::: WP-2183-2021 (final).doc which was allowed vide impugned order dated 4 th February, 2021 leading to the filing of the present petition.
6. Heard Mr. P. N. Patil for Petitioner, Mr. Rohan Cama for Respondent No.2 and Mr. B. B. Sharma for Respondent No.6 respectively.
7. Mr. Patil, would submit that as per Section 18 of MCS Act, the Registrar was required to be satisfied that it is in interest of members that the Society be bifurcated for which consultation is required with the Federal Society, which if not responded within 45 days, 'No objection' is presumed. He submits that in the present case, the draft scheme was prepared and forwarded to the federal Society and as there was no opinion communicated, 'No objection' of federal society is presumed. Pointing out to order of Joint Registrar, he submits that Joint Registrar was satisfied that considering the disputes and the groupism amongst the members and for appropriate administrative control, action under Section 18(1) is warranted. He submits that the Appellate Authority has taken a contrary view by considering factors which are extraneous to an inquiry under Section 18 of MCS Act. He submits that Appellate Authority has considered that there will be a difficulty in sub-division of the plot and a dispute about the utilisation of the Floor Space Index, which were not required to be considered. He would further submit that provisions of Section 17 are distinct and Sairaj 4 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2025 07:32:19 ::: WP-2183-2021 (final).doc separate from Section 18 of MCS Act and Appellate Authority has upset the findings of Joint Registrar by considering non compliance of Section 17 of MCS Act. He submits that Appellate Authority has erred in holding that there is an encroachment by the row houses owners which is irrelevant consideration. Drawing support from decision in the case of The Ruby Emerald Diamond Park Co-operative Housing Society v. Guru Dileep Mazgoankar1, he submits that in that case, identical contention as regards the dispute on the aspect of F.S.I. was raised and the Court held the said facts to be irrelevant for consideration of bifurcation and that possibility of flat owners of the majority flat owners having defining-say in decision-making process cannot be lost sight of. He submits that the Special Leave Petition against the said order came to be dismissed.
8. Per contra Mr. Cama, would submit that Respondent No.2-Society has built-up area which amounts to 74% of the total built-up area whereas the petitioner-society is having 26% of built-up area. He tenders a sketch of layout to demonstrate the location of building, the row houses and the shops. He submits that if the property is divided in ratio of constructed area, i.e. 74:26, some of the row houses would fall within 74% plot of Respondent No.2-Society and therefore, there is actual impartibility aspect which was not considered. He would further 1 Writ Petition No. 828 of 2015 dtd.17th July, 2015.
Sairaj 5 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2025 07:32:19 :::
WP-2183-2021 (final).doc
submit that the judgment in the case of The Ruby Emerald Diamond Park Co-operative Housing Society (supra) in fact takes into consideration the circumstances that three colonies therein were situated on separate independent plots and had independent roads, water pumping stations, electricity meters as also the planning was of three different types which is not so in the present case. He submits that the bifurcation order firstly does not record any finding that it is in the interest of members that the Society should be bifurcated and secondly, the directions place the responsibility of sub-division on Respondent No.2-Society. He submits that the Application for bifurcation demonstrates that the disputes are referable to Section 91 of MCS Act. He would further submit that Clause No. 46 of the Sale Agreement provides that interest in the said building is impartible. He submits that the property is leased by City and Industrial Development Corporation, who has filed Affidavit-in-reply stating that sub-division/bifurcation of the plot on which buildings have already been constructed and occupancy certificate is obtained, is not allowed. He submits that in view thereof, the property cannot be sub-divided and would lead to further complications.
9. Drawing support from decision of Navjivan Commercial Premises Co-operative Society v. Navjivan Co-operative Housing Sairaj 6 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2025 07:32:19 ::: WP-2183-2021 (final).doc Society2 he would submit that the co-ordinate bench has held that the bifurcation orders must first contain satisfaction of the Registrar and that it is essential to settle the dispute on the questions with regard to the common property and amenities including the dispute with regard to the available FSI. He submits that the Joint Registrar did not take into consideration all these aspects which has been rightly considered by the Hon'ble Minister.
10. In rejoinder, Mr. Patil would submit that objection of absence of consultation with federal society was not raised before the Hon'ble Minister. He submits that the issue of F.S.I. is consequential act which is not required to be taken into consideration at the time of adjudication of Section 18 Application. He submits that as far as common amenities are concerned, the order of Joint Registrar takes care of the same. He submits that in Navjivan Commercial Premises Co-operative Society (supra), the bifurcation order is under the pre-amended Act which was in the context of public interest.
11. I have considered the submissions and perused the records.
12. There is no dispute about the layout comprising of building consisting of four wings, the row houses and the shops as also about the ratio of the constructed area in proportion of 74: 26. Bifurcation is sought by members occupying 26% constructed area. For better 2 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1615 Sairaj 7 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2025 07:32:19 ::: WP-2183-2021 (final).doc understanding of the actual position at site, Mr. Cama had submitted a sketch of the layout, which was not disputed by Mr. Patil. The sketch depicts that on the southern side of the building, some of the rowhouses and shops are located. In event, the plot has to be physically sub-divided in proportion to the constructed area, some of the row houses and shops would fall within the 74% plot of the Respondent No. 2-Society.
13. Coming to the statutory provisions, Section 18 of MCS Act permits bifurcation of the Society if found essential in :
(a) public interest, or
(b) interest of members of such society, or
(c) interest of the co-operative movement, or
(d) for securing proper management of any society, and reads thus:
18. Power to direct amalgamation, division and reorganisation in the public interest or in the interest of members, etc. (1) Where the Registrar is satisfied that it is essential in the public interest or in the interest of members of such societies or in the interest of the co-operative movement, or for the purpose of securing the proper management of any society, that two or more societies should amalgamate or any society should be divided to form two or more societies or should be reorganized then notwithstanding anything contained in the last preceding section but subject to the provisions of this section, the Registrar may, after consulting such federal society as may be notified by the State Government by order notified in the Official Gazette, provide for the amalgamation, division or reorganization, of those societies into a single society, or into societies with such constitution, property rights, interests and authorities, and such liabilities, duties and obligations, as may be specified in the order:
Sairaj 8 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2025 07:32:19 :::
WP-2183-2021 (final).doc
Provided that, such notified federal society shall communicate its opinion to the Registrar within a period of forty-five days from the date of receipt of communication, failing which it shall be presumed that such federal society has no objection to the amalgamation, division or reorganisation and the Registrar shall be at liberty to proceed further to take action accordingly.
(2) No order shall be made under this section, unless-
(a) a copy of the proposed order has been sent in draft to the society or each of the societies concerned.
(b) the Registrar has considered and made such modifications in the draft order as may seem to him desirable in the light of any suggestions and objections which may be received by him within such period (not being less than two months from the date on which the copy of the order as aforesaid was received by the society) as the Registrar may fix in that behalf, either from the society or from any member or class of members thereof, or from any creditor or class of creditors.
(3) The order referred to in sub-section (1) may contain such incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions as may, in the opinion of the Registrar, be necessary to give effect to the amalgamation, the division or reorganization. (4) Every member or creditor of or other person inserted in each of the societies to be amalgamated, divided or reorganized who has objected to the scheme of amalgamation, division or reorganization, within the period specified, shall be entitled to receive, on the issue of the order of amalgamation, division or reorganisation his share or interest if he be a member and the amount in satisfaction of his due if he be a creditor.
(5) On the issue of an order under sub-section (1), the provisions in sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 17 shall apply to the societies so amalgamated, divided or reorganised as if they were amalgamated, divided or reorganised under that section, and to the society amalgamated, divided or reorganised.
(6) Nothing contained, in this section shall apply for the amalgamation of two or more co-operative banks or two or more primary agricultural credit societies.
14. Rule 17 of the The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, Sairaj 9 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2025 07:32:19 ::: WP-2183-2021 (final).doc 1961 provides for the consultation by the Registrar with the Federal Society on the draft scheme prepared and reads thus:
17. Direction by Registrar for amalgamation, division and reorganisation of societies:-
(1) Before issuing any order under sub-section (1) of Section 18 providing for the amalgamation, division or reorganisation of any society or societies, the Registrar shall prepare a draft scheme in respect of such amalgamation, division or reorganisation stating in particular the manner in which the new committee or committees, of the society or societies resulting from such amalgamation, conversion or reorganisation shall be constituted and the by-laws which such society or societies shall follow. The Registrar shall then consult such federal society as may be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette, the notified Federal Society shall offer its remarks within forty-five days from the date of receipt of communication. If such Federal Society does not offer remarks within forty-five days, or and after considering the suggestions, if any, that will be made by such federal society, shall send a copy of the draft of the order proposed to be issued by him under sub-section (1) of Section 18, to the society or each of the societies concerned calling upon it or them to invite objections or suggestions from any member or class of members thereof or from any creditor or class of creditors and to submit such objections and suggestions together with its own or their own suggestions and objections within a period of not less than two months from the date on which the copy of the draft aforesaid was received by it or them.
(2) The Registrar shall consider all such suggestions and objections and make such modifications in the draft order as may seem to him desirable in the light of those suggestions or objections and then issue a final order under sub-section (1) of Section 18.
(3) Any member or creditor of each of the societies to be amalgamated, divided or reorganised, who has objected to the scheme of amalgamation, division or reorganisation within the period specified in sub-rule (1), may apply to the Registrar for payment of his share or interest, if he be a member, and the amount in satisfaction of his dues, if he be a creditor. Such application shall be separate and distinct from the objection or suggestion which he may have submitted to the society or the Registrar under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 18. It shall be competent for the Registrar to nominate an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Registrar to investigate such Sairaj 10 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2025 07:32:19 ::: WP-2183-2021 (final).doc applications and to determine the payments required to be made to the members or creditors, as the case may be. (4) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the rules and the by- laws, the Registrar may by order require the society concerned to meet in full or satisfy otherwise all due claims of the members and creditors and thereupon the society shall be bound to meet in full or satisfy otherwise all due claims of the members and creditors within such time as may be specified by the Registrar in the order.
15. The statutory scheme of Section 18 read with Rule 17 necessitates the bifurcation order to be a comprehensive order providing for constitution, property rights, interests and authorities, liabilities, duties and obligations and to contain such incidental, consequential and supplemental provisions as are necessary to give effect to the division. Before ordering bifurcation, the Registrar is required to consult the Federal Society on the draft scheme and after considering its suggestions, if any, and where there are no remarks offered within 45 days, the draft of the proposed order is to be sent to the Society inviting suggestions and objections and thereafter the final order is to be issued.
16. Considering the statutory provision, the use of the expression "interest of members of such societies", or "in interest of the co- operative movement" or "for the purpose of securing proper management of the society" cannot be construed in a narrow sense of personal interest of the members and has to be understood in the context of the statutory scheme of Section 18. While adjudicating an Sairaj 11 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2025 07:32:19 ::: WP-2183-2021 (final).doc application for bifurcation, there has to be holistic consideration of the consequences ensuing from the bifurcation and whether the bifurcation order is capable of providing a clear cut division of the constitution of the societies, the property rights and interests, separation of common amenities, etc. which are necessary for the smooth functioning of the bifurcated societies. To achieve that end, the property rights and interests and common amenities should not be intertwined in such a manner so as to be inseparable. The intent behind the preparation of the draft scheme in respect of the bifurcation is to ensure that the scheme makes necessary arrangement for separation of property rights and common amenities.
17. In the present case, although it is sought to be contended by Mr. Cama that draft scheme as contemplated by Rule 17 was not sent to federal society, the same is a question of fact and there is no material produced on record to show that such objection was raised before any authority and therefore, I am not inclined to consider the same.
18. Coming to the case set up by Petitioner, the Application under Section 18 of MCS Act sought bifurcation on the ground that the managing committee has misappropriated the society funds, there was illegal calling and conduct of Annual General Meeting, contrary to the statutory provisions. The request to hold election after end of tenure was ignored and non-maintenance of their premises despite payment Sairaj 12 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2025 07:32:19 ::: WP-2183-2021 (final).doc of maintenance. The allegations were denied by Respondent No. 2 and it was pleaded that despite the share of Petitioner-Society being 26.01% of constructed area, an area of about 50% is occupied by them, the bifurcation is not possible as the constructed built-up area of Respondent No. 2 is 73.99%, whereas that of Petitioner is 26.01% and that the drainage line is common and therefore, bifurcation is not possible.
19. The order of the Joint Registrar holds that there is dispute between the members and groupism and therefore, in interest of co- operative movement and for securing proper management of the Society, action under Section 18(1) is required. The order further provides for separate constitution of two separate societies, the arrangement as far as issuance of fresh share certificates of newly constituted society. Most pertinent are the directions to approach the Competent Authority for sub-division of the land and transfer of conveyed land by Respondent No. 2 to the Petitioner in proportion to the constructed area. The bifurcation order puts the responsibility about the arrangement about separation of common amenities upon two societies.
20. The difficulty with the bifurcation order is that firstly the Competent Authority in this case is CIDCO, who had leased the property to Respondent No. 2 and the resolution of CIDCO does not Sairaj 13 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2025 07:32:19 ::: WP-2183-2021 (final).doc permit sub division/bifurcation of plots on which buildings have already been constructed and occupancy certificate is obtained. The bifurcation order does not take into consideration this eventuality of refusal of permission by Competent Authority for sub-division of property, in which case, the bifurcation order cannot be given effect. That apart, the major issues required to be addressed by the bifurcation order is the division of property rights, and common amenities, which the bifurcation order fails to address and leaves the contested issues wide open.
21. The bifurcation order also cannot be sustained as there is no reasoned finding in the order as to why the bifurcation is necessary. The Joint Registrar failed to notice that the mechanism provided under the MCS Act were sufficient for resolving the disputes sought to be put forth as ground for bifurcation as the allegations appear to be qua the concerned Managing Committee members.
22. The allegation of misappropriation of Society funds, non-holding of elections, irregular manner in passing of resolutions, maintenance, etc. are all issues which are capable of being redressed by adopting the necessary remedy under the provisions of MCS Act. The enquiry which ought to have been conducted is whether the disputes have the effect of disrupting the effective management of Society. In addition, it was also necessary to consider whether the legislative intent of effective Sairaj 14 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2025 07:32:19 ::: WP-2183-2021 (final).doc management can be achieved in the facts of present case where there is practical impossibility of division of land in proportion to the built-up area.
23. The Appellate Authority has rightly considered the probability of sub-division creating difficulty in future. Although the Appellate Authority observes that contention of Respondent No. 2 about encroachment prima facie appears to have substance, the fact remains that the observation of the Appellate Authority on issues outside its jurisdiction would not have any binding effect. Further, though the Appellate Authority has considered the provisions of Section 17(1) of MCS Act, the same is irrelevant. What is of relevance is the finding of the Appellate Authority that the bifurcation will result in dispute about the utilisation of the F.S.I. and therefore, bifurcation is not in interest of the Society.
24. Although it may not be possible to envisage every possible kind of property dispute and make provision for the same in the bifurcation order, in the present case, the objection raised by Respondent No.1 would clearly indicate the issue of actual impartibility of the property considering the layout. Before this Court, the layout produced has not been disputed and there is no answer by Mr. Patil to the issue of actual division of the land in proportion to the constructed built-up area.
25. Mr. Cama has also raised an objection to the bifurcation on the Sairaj 15 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2025 07:32:19 ::: WP-2183-2021 (final).doc ground of location of common amenities. From perusal of the record, it is not discerned that the said issue was raised before the authorities. However, it cannot be disputed that the amenities were shared in common by the societies and making of alternate arrangements such as drainage, water and electric supply have been left to the two societies by the bifurcation order, which is unacceptable.
26. Sub-Section (1) read with Sub-Section (3) of Section 18 of MCS Act makes it imperative for the bifurcation order to provide for the constitution of the societies and property rights as well as necessary directions on incident, consequential and supplemental requirements if needed for bifurcation of the Society. In the facts of the present case, there was a need to provide for the manner in which the division of the land could take place considering ratio of the constructed built up area. The bifurcation order, apart from the fact that it does not indicate the Joint Registrar's satisfaction as envisaged under Section 18(1) of MCS Act, leaves open all contested issues regarding the actual division of land.
27. In Navjivan Commercial Premises Co-operative Society vs Navjivan Co-operative Housing Society (supra), the Co-ordinate bench of this Court after analysing the provisions of Section 18 of the MCS Act has upheld the observations in the impugned order therein that it was necessary and essential to settle the dispute on the questions with Sairaj 16 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2025 07:32:19 ::: WP-2183-2021 (final).doc regard to the common property and amenities including the dispute with regard to division of available F.S.I. It was held that before passing an order of bifurcation, it is necessary to adjudicate the necessary arrangements with regard to division of assets and liabilities in the scheme for division of the property approved by the Registrar. The bifurcation order being passed as per unamended act is immaterial as the Co-ordinate Bench has made observations in context of making arrangements with regard to division of assets and liabilities.
28. In the present case, the Joint Registrar has rested its finding only on the aspect of inter se dispute without supporting the said conclusion by reasoned discussion. Further, the order of Joint Registrar leaves the contested issue as regards the sub-division, common amenities, etc. open, which is not the scheme of Section 18. An order passed under Section 18 of the MCS Act should contain specific arrangement as regards the constitution and the property rights and interests as well as the liabilities, duties and obligations so as to extinguish the probability of any further litigation in that respect. In the present case, the mere fact about sub-division being a practical impossibility militates against the order of bifurcation.
29. The Appellate Authority by taking into consideration the impartibility aspect, which would have resulted in further dispute between the parties has therefore, rightly set aside the bifurcation Sairaj 17 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2025 07:32:19 ::: WP-2183-2021 (final).doc order.
30. The decision of The Ruby Emerald Diamond Park Co-operative Housing Society vs Guru Dileep Mazgaonkar and Ors (supra) relied upon by Mr. Patil is distinguishable on facts, as in that case, three colonies were situated on three separate and independent plots, the planning was of three different types, the colonies had independent roads, water pumping station and electric meters. The distribution of F.S.I. in the facts of that case were held not be germane for the bifurcation order. However, in the instant case, the actual impartibility of the land vitiates the bifurcation order.
31. In light of the above discussion, the order of the Appellate Authority cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity so as to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, Petition fails and stands dismissed.
32. In view of dismissal of Writ Petition, nothing survives for consideration in the pending Interim Applications and the same stand disposed of.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
33. At this stage, request is made for extension of the ad-interim relief, which is operating in favor of the Petitioner. The request is Sairaj 18 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2025 07:32:19 ::: WP-2183-2021 (final).doc opposed by learned counsel for Respondent No. 2.
34. Interim relief is extended for a period of eight weeks from today.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Sairaj 19 of 19
::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2025 07:32:19 :::