Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Smt. Geeta Narayan Parvati, was a lecturer and member of Respondent No.2 Society, a tenant co-partnership society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The Society comprised women working with the State Government. Respondent No.1, Smt. Vijaya B. Joshi, was the Chief Promoter. The State Government allotted a plot to the Society. The Petitioner sought transfer of share and interest in a flat from the original allottee, Smt. S. S. Kulkarni, who had resigned. The Petitioner paid the required amounts and complied with by-laws. However, the Society refused to transfer, citing that the Petitioner was not a government employee and that the transfer was not in accordance with the by-laws. The Petitioner filed a dispute before the Cooperative Court, which allowed the dispute and directed the Society to transfer the flat. The Society appealed to the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, which set aside the Cooperative Court's order. The Petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court examined the by-laws and found that the Petitioner had complied with all requirements. The court held that the Society's refusal was arbitrary and not based on any valid ground. The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Appellate Court's order, and restored the Cooperative Court's order directing the transfer of the flat to the Petitioner.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Law - Transfer of Shares - Tenant Co-partnership Society - Section 22 Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - The court considered whether a society can refuse transfer of shares and interest in a flat to a member who has complied with the by-laws and rules. The court held that once a member fulfills the conditions for transfer, the society cannot unreasonably withhold consent. The refusal must be based on valid grounds as per the by-laws and the Act. (Paras 1-34) B) Cooperative Law - Bye-laws - Interpretation - Rule 24 Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 - The court examined the by-laws of the society and found that the transfer was in accordance with the by-laws. The court held that the by-laws must be strictly construed and the society cannot impose additional conditions beyond those specified. (Paras 10-20) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The court exercised its writ jurisdiction to correct an error of law by the Appellate Court. The court held that the Appellate Court's order was perverse and not based on evidence, warranting interference under Article 227. (Paras 2, 34)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the refusal of the Respondent No.2 Society to transfer the share and interest in the flat in favour of the Petitioner was justified, and whether the Appellate Court erred in setting aside the Cooperative Court's order allowing the dispute.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment and order of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court dated 17/11/2000, and restored the judgment and order of the Cooperative Court No.1, Mumbai dated 4/9/1999, directing the Society to transfer the share and interest in the flat to the Petitioner.
Law Points
- Cooperative Society
- Transfer of Shares
- Bye-laws
- Tenant Co-partnership Society
- Section 22 Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
- 1960
- Rule 24 Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules
- 1961
- Writ Jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227
