YOGESH JAYANTILAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions arise out of similar set of facts and evidence. As the issues involved are similar and arise from similar order, both the writ petitions are being decided together by this common judgment.

(2.) By the present writ petitions instituted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the Judgment and Order dtd. 16/2/2026 passed by respondent No.2 in Revision Application No.311 of 2025 preferred by respondent No.6, the proposed co-operative society.

(3.) The facts according to petitioners giving rise to the present writ petitions may briefly be stated as follows. The petitioners claim to be lawful members of respondent No.5, the existing co- operative housing society, which is the original society. Initially, 195 members had preferred an appeal before respondent No.3, the Divisional Joint Registrar. However, certain original appellants were not available for executing the vakalatnama. Consequently, the present writ petition has been instituted on behalf of 170 petitioners. It is not in dispute that both the petitioners and the chief promoter of respondent No.6, the proposed society, are members of respondent No.5 Society. The said society comprises two residential towers, namely Tower One and Tower Two. Approximately 190 members are residing in Tower One, whereas about 340 members are residing in Tower Two. The chief promoter of respondent No.6, along with approximately 88 members residing in Tower One, submitted a joint application dtd. 21/10/2024 before respondent No.4 seeking exercise of powers under Sec. 18 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 for the purpose of effecting division of respondent No.5 Society into two separate societies. Thereafter, another application dtd. 25/10/2024 was also submitted reiterating the request for division of the said society. Along with the said application, the chief promoter forwarded certain resolutions purportedly passed by the proposed society. However, the said resolutions did not bear the names of any proposer or seconder. Subsequently, on 25/11/2024, the chief promoter submitted a proposal along with certain documents in support of the application seeking division of respondent No.5 Society. It is the case of the petitioners that neither the chief promoter nor the members who had signed the aforesaid application had submitted any requisition to respondent No.5 Society for convening a Special General Meeting for taking a decision regarding division of the society, as contemplated under Sec. 17 of the said Act.