Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the cancellation of the registration of the Shantiniketan Industrial Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. by the Divisional Joint Registrar on 2 September 2011, following an appeal by Respondent No.3, M/s. Dipti Builders Universal Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner challenged this cancellation, claiming that the society had been operational for 17 years and that the cancellation would disrupt its management. The petitioner argued that Respondent No.3 lacked locus to oppose the registration since it had sold its units in 2013. The court examined the requirements under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which mandates that a society must consist of at least ten members from different families. The court found that the application for registration did not meet this requirement, as several promoters were from the same family. The court also noted that the petitioner had delayed challenging the cancellation for 13 years, rendering the society a non-existent entity. The court dismissed the petition, affirming the decisions of the Divisional Joint Registrar and the Hon’ble Minister, stating that the petitioner could have filed a new proposal for registration if desired. The court concluded that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it without costs.
Headnote
A) Co-operative Societies - Registration Cancellation - Justification for Cancellation - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Section 6 - The registration of the society was cancelled due to failure to meet the requirement of having at least ten members from different families as stipulated in Section 6. The court upheld the cancellation, noting that the application for registration did not fulfill the necessary conditions. Held that the Divisional Joint Registrar acted correctly in setting aside the registration (Paras 9-10). B) Locus Standi - Right to Challenge Registration - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - The court found that Respondent No.3 had the right to challenge the registration despite having sold the units, as the appeal was filed prior to the sale. The court ruled that locus cannot be determined by subsequent events. Held that Respondent No.3 was justified in opposing the registration (Paras 13-14). C) Delay in Filing - Impact on Revision Application - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - The court noted the significant delay of 13 years in filing the revision application, which raised questions about the validity of the petition. However, it concluded that the Hon’ble Minister's decision on merits was appropriate despite the delay. Held that the delay did not invalidate the merits of the case (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the cancellation of the society's registration was justified and whether the petitioner had the locus to challenge the orders.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the cancellation of the society's registration and the decisions of the Divisional Joint Registrar and the Hon’ble Minister. The court found no merit in the petition and noted the significant delay in challenging the cancellation.
Law Points
- Co-operative Society Registration
- Locus Standi
- Delay in Filing
- Family Membership Requirement
- Procedural Irregularity
