Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Challenge in the petition is to judgment and order dated 20.10.2015 passed by Respondent No. 8 - State. Issue being agitated 1 of 12 WP.10183.2018.doc before Court is of jurisdiction of Respondent No. 7 to dispose of complaint filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 pursuant to remand by this Court or whether by the Cooperative Court under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Society Act, 1960 ("MCS Act").

8. Petitioner No. 1 - Society challenged the order dated 03.01.2014 in this Court in Writ Petition No. 2372 of 2014. By order dated 30.07.2015, this Court set aside the order dated 03.01.2014 passed by Respondent No. 8 and remanded the matter to Respondent No. 8 for fresh decision and directed him to decide the issue of jurisdiction.

9. According to Mr. Fatangare, learned Advocate for Society, unless and until the Special General Meeting resolutions hold the field and they stand, Petitioner 1 - Society is entitled to charge the amounts incurred for internal repairs from its members. He would vehemently argue that legality of resolutions can be challenged only under Section 91 of the MCS Act and therefore the same is within the domain of the Cooperative Court only. He would submit that Respondent No. 8 did not adhere to the direction of the High Court and did not decide the issue of jurisdiction and directed Petitioner No. 1 - Society to refund / 4 of 12 WP.10183.2018.doc adjust the amount paid by Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in the contentious bills. He would submit that there was delay of 37 days in filing the revision application before the Minister for which delay was not even condoned. He would submit that in the meanwhile Respondent Nos. 2 and 5 (members of the Society) addressed a letter to the Registrar, withdrawing their claim against the Society. He would submit that Respondent No. 8 did not decide who would be the Competent authority / forum to decide the dispute. He would submit that instead of deciding the forum to decide the dispute, Respondent No. 8 allowed the Application of Respondent No. 1 to 6 on merits. He would submit that thus the impugned order is in violation of the judgment and order dated 30.07.2015 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2372 of 2014. He would submit that recovery is effected from members of Society for internal repairs as per resolutions passed by the General Body. He would submit that the resolutions are binding on all members. He would submit that unless the said resolutions are challenged and set aside, liability of members shall subsist. He would submit that only 4 out 312 members of the Society are objecting to pay the repair charges. He would therefore persuade the court to set aside the impugned order and direct Respondent No. 8 to decide the issue of jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the 4 private Respondents (members of society) who have refused to pay the repair charges. In support of his submission he has referred to and relied 5 of 12 WP.10183.2018.doc upon the decision of this court in the case of Indrasan Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.1

10. Per contra Mr. Patwardhan, learned Advocate for private Respondents namely Respondent Nos. 1 ,2 and 4 to 6 would submit that the five members before court are those members whose flats are situated right below the Society Building Terrace and for which extensive repairs for seepage and leakage was carried out and substantial expenses were incurred. He would submit that prior to the resolutions which are agitated by the Society, on 29.07.2012 the General Body in its Special General Meeting unanimously resolved that repair expenses of Rs. 22 lakhs pertaining to members residing in the flats below the Society Building Terrace be excluded from the costs of repairs namely internal repairs. He would submit that this resolution was passed in consonance with Bye-Law No. 160(a)(xvii) and was also confirmed in the subsequent Special General Meeting held on 15.08.2012. He would submit that Bye-Law No. 160(a) pertained to damages to ceiling and to repairs and maintenance of Society property to be carried by the Society and to the damaged ceiling and plaster thereon in the top floor flats on account of leakage of rain water through the terrace. He would submit that the Society has levied these very expenses on the private Respondents whom he represents and therefore Respondent No. 8 in the impugned order has rightly 1 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 706 6 of 12 WP.10183.2018.doc observed that such levy of recovery by Society was not in accordance with Bye-Law 160(a). He would submit that it is in this context that under Section 89A of the MCS Act, Respondent No. 7 issued 3 Show Cause Notices dated 13.09.2012, 04.10.2012, 04.12.2012 to the Society. He would submit that Petitioners did not reply to the Show Cause Notices. He would submit that in this context Respondent No. 7 directed Respondents to invoke remedy under section 91 of the MCS Act. He would submit that once Model Bye-Laws are adopted by the Society Respondent No. 7 is well within his powers to take steps against the Society for non compliance of Bye-Laws. He would submit that there is no inter se dispute between Petitioner Society and private Respondent (members). He would submit that neither is there any intense dispute between members of the Society. He would submit that private Respondents approached Respondent No. 7 with a specific complaint regarding non compliance of Bye-Law No. 160(a)(xvii) despite the Society resolution dated 29.07.2013. He would submit that if there is failure on part of Society to not comply with the Bye-Law then Respondent No.7 can direct appropriate compliance. He would submit that Respondent No.7 cannot direct private respondents to file a dispute application in the Cooperative Court under section 91 of the MCS Act in such a case. He would submit that it was this power of Respondent No.7 which has been correctly distinguished by Respondent No.8 while passing the impugned order in Revision 7 of 12 WP.10183.2018.doc proceedings. He would submit that Respondent No.8 has correctly exercised his revision jurisdiction after recording finding that Respondent No. 7 failed to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 79(2) of the MCS Act. He would submit that once Petitioner No. 1 - Society adopts Bye-Law No. 160(a), then the impugned order is required to be held as correctly passed in law. He would submit that Society is also simultaneously guilty of practicing discrimination subsequent to the above incidents. He would submit that Petitioner No. 1 - Society has waived the said repair amounts in the case of Respondent No. 1 and 3 by reversing the amounts and interest and hence the same benefit needs to be extended to the other Respondents namely Respondent No. 4 and 6 who are now the only aggrieved Respondents. He would distinguish the decision in the case of Indrasan Co-operative Housing Society Limited (supra) relied upon by Petitioners and contend that the said case did not deal with external repairs to the terrace area and pertained distinctly to internal repairs of flats only. He would submit that repairs to the terrace area in the present case is squarely covered by Bye-Law No. 160(a)(xvii). He would therefore persuade me to dismiss the Petition and uphold the order dated 20.10.2015 passed by Respondent No. 8 in its Revisional jurisdiction.