R.J. Kochar, J.@mdashThe petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society. It is aggrieved by the impugned order of the Minister for Co-operation, State of Maharashtra. By the impugned order dated 3rd January, 2002, the Minister was pleased to cancel the orders dated 17th October, 2001 and 3rd November 1999 passed respectively by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and the Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mumbai by which orders the petitioner society was allowed to be registered as Co-operative Housing Society u/s 9 read with sections 4 and 6 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
2. The petitioner along with its 28 members had submitted a proposal for registration of the petitioner society. The application for the registration complied with all the prescribed requirements and, therefore, by his order dated 3rd November, 1999, the Deputy Registrar had issued registration certificate to the petitioner society. The respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "the Builders") aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Deputy Registrar registering the society, filed an appeal u/s 152 of the Act challenging the decision of the Dy. Registrar before the Appellate Authority i.e. Divisional Joint Registrar. The petitioner had filed its affidavit and the builders had also filed rejoinder. The learned Appellate Authority on consideration of the material on record dismissed the appeal by his order dated 17th October, 2001 and confirmed the order of the Dy. Registrar. The builders, being aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Authority, approached the Minister for Co-operation u/s 154 of the Act in revision. The petitioner filed reply in the said revision. The Minister by his order dated 3rd January, 2002 allowed the revision and quashed and set aside the orders passed by both the authorities below. The Minister has given the following specific reasons to quash and set aside the orders impugned before him.
i) The Divisional Joint Registrar did not give an opportunity to the builders to substantiate their allegations that the flat owners of flat Nos. 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 were related with each other. According to the Minister the builders would have been in a position to prove how section 10 of the Act as violated but for want of such an opportunity the builders could not prove the said allegations and, therefore, the appeal was wrongfully dismissed by the Appellate Authority;
ii) According to the Minister out of 41 flat owners 28 flat owners ought to have signed the registration proposal in accordance with the Government Circular dated 24th July, 1992. According to the said circular minimum number of signatories to apply for registration is 60% of the total flat owners. The Minister observed that only 25 flat owners had submitted the registration proposal and, therefore, he found that the condition for minimum number prescribed in the said circular is not complied with.
3. On the aforesaid two grounds the Minister had cancelled the orders passed by the two authorities below.
4. The present impugned order is the second order which I came across, whereby the very same Minister has accepted the revision application filed by the builders to cancel the registration of the Co-operative Housing Society. I, therefore, thought it proper to decide the issue of registration of the Co-operative Housing Societies under the Act finally at my end.
5. Rule. By consent returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service.
6. The question at hand often arises and is faced by the Co-operative Societies, particularly the Co-operative Housing Societies. Once the registration of the society is cancelled, the flat owners face several problems including the supply of essential services. This petition could not be rejected at the threshold. I have gone through the order passed by the Dy. Registrar in exercise of his powers u/s 6 of the Act. The minimum requirement of persons in the said provision is 10 members who are qualified to be members of the society under the Act and who reside in the area of operation of the society. This minimum number of the eligible members is increased by the circular dated 24th July, 1992 by the State Government to 60% of the total number of the members of the society. It means that the total number of members who apply for the registration of the society should be 60% of the total flat purchasers. At the outset as pointed out by Shri Thorat, the learned Counsel for the petitioner society that the Minister has committed a basic error in computing 60% of the 41 flat holders which comes to 24 flat members. It is, therefore, clear that 24 members ought to have signed the proposal for registration. It is clearly reflected from the order of the Minister that total 25 flat holders had signed the proposal for registration. I fail to understand how the Minister has computed 28 flat holders equivalent to 60% of the 41 flat holders. Shri Menon, the learned Advocate for the builders has not questioned the aforesaid simple arithmetic that 60% of the 41 flat holders would be 24 flat holders. It is clear from the record and the order of the Minister that there were 25 members who applied for registration of the society and that satisfied the requirement in the prescribed circular of the State Government. On the face of it, the order of the Minister is perverse and cannot be sustained even for a minute. In my opinion, there is absolutely no breach or violation of section 10 of the Act. The petitioner has complied with the mandatory requirement prescribed under the Act. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order of the Minister is quashed and set aside and the orders passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar is restored.
7. Shri Menon has tried to argue in respect of the misdeeds and misconduct committed by the Chief Promotor of the petitioner society. He has made serious allegations against him. I am not dealing with those allegations. That is not the subject matter or issue in this petition. The Minister has cancelled the registration of the society not on any other ground which are tried to be canvassed by Shri Menon before me to justify the order passed by the learned Minister. The Divisional Joint Registrar has reproduced the said allegations in his order but has rightly found that those were vague and non specific allegations and that they did not form hurdle in registration of a Co-operative Housing Society. I fail to understand the logic of the Minister when he had observed that the Divisional Joint Registrar had not given opportunity to the builders to substantiate their allegations. The builders had approached the said Appellate Authority by filing an appeal against the order of the Dy. Registrar and it was entirely for the builders-appellant to have substantiate their grounds of appeal. I fail to understand how it can be said that they had no opportunity to substantiate or prove their own allegations made against the society and against the order of the Dy. Registrar. The Divisional Joint Registrar has rightly opined that the builders had not brought any material to indicate any illegality and/or irregularity in support of their case. It was not the function and duty of the Minister sitting in revision under a very narrow jurisdiction to enlarge the scope of the revision before him. He had no powers and jurisdiction to probe into the allegations in respect of the forgery committed by anyone as alleged by the Builders. Whether there was any breach of agreement or not it was open to the parties to have resorted to the suitable remedy provided under the law. All such questions of allegations and counter allegations cannot be made to obstruct smooth process of registration of a Co-operative Society. The Revisional Authority u/s 154 of the Act has tried the revision as an original dispute and not as a revision which lies only when there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order of the lower authority or the order is totally perverse or if there is manifest miscarriage of justice. It was for the appellants builders to have satisfied the Appellate Authority in respect of the deficit of the requisite number of the flat holders who ought to have signed the proposal. The appellants, therefore, could not make any grievance against the impugned order before the Revisional Authority that no opportunity was given to them. The Revisional Authority functioning u/s 154 of the Act should remember that its jurisdiction is extremely narrow and it could interfere with the orders of the lower authorities only when such orders suffer from errors of law apparent on the face of record or are per se perverse or they cause great injustice to the parties. The powers and jurisdiction of the Revisional Authority u/s 154 are well known and well conditioned under the civil law. There is no departure from such well established and well entrenched principles in respect of revisions. The Revisional Authority cannot lose sight of another fact that the Appellate Authority has larger powers in appeal to consider the facts and the Revisional Authority ought to be extremely slow in interfering with the orders passed by the Appellate Authority which is the second fact finding forum against the orders of the Dy. Registrar. The Revisional Authority i.e. the Minister cannot further afford to forget that his role as well as the role of the State Government under this Act is to encourage, permit and foster a healthy Co-operative movement and not to discourage or obstruct and defeat the purpose of the Act which is to foster a healthy Co-operative movement in the State. By proceeding to cancel the registration of the housing societies on some flimsy and technical grounds the Minister has in fact discouraged the Co-operative movement and has defeated the purpose of the social enactment. It is clearly reflected in the order of the Minister that he has failed to imbibe the spirit of the Co-operative movement in the State. The Minister has failed to appreciate that the purpose of registration of a Co-operative Society is to bring a sizable number of members together and make them work together in the spirit of co-operation. The purpose of the society is to act through one body to solve the day to day problems and also to deal with the several authorities such as Municipal Corporation and the State Government. Before proceeding to cancel the registration of a Co-operative Housing Society, the authorities must appreciate the hardships and difficulties which would be caused to the members of the society particularly in getting the supply of essential services viz., water, electricity etc. We have to adopt a liberal approach and not a pedantic one heading towards cancellation of the registration. Our approach must be to save and preserve and encourage registration of societies and never to lightly cancel the registration of the Co-operative Societies to wipe them out of existence. The percentage or the number prescribed by the State Government need not be and should not be strictly considered or computed. There has to be only a substantial compliance with the requisite minimum so that the society would have economic viability to function properly.
8. The members of the society have approached appropriate authority for registration of their society under sections, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the Act. An appeal is provided u/s 152 of the Act against the order or decision under the aforesaid sections amongst other sections prescribed in section 152. I fail to understand how the builders can be said to be an aggrieved party of a decision of the registration of society. No reliefs are sought against the builders. The role and function of the builders come to an end when the builders sell flats to the purchasers. It is the purchasers who form the society and they approach the Registrar for registering such society subject to their compliance with the prescribed conditions. Such appeals are provided u/s 152 of the Act. If the Registrar refuses to pass any order or give any decision, in that case the members who approach the Registrar are said to be aggrieved party. In my opinion the builders have no locus and they have no right to file an appeal u/s 152 or revision u/s 154 of the Act. In fact in the present case and in almost all cases of such a nature the builders have abused the process of sections 152 and 154 of the Act. In fact the appellate as well as the Revisional Authorities ought not to entertain such appeals or such revisions in respect of the orders or decisions of the Registrar. The builders have absolutely no role to play in the process of the registration of the society. It is for the Registrar and the proposers to comply with the prescribed conditions. If the Registrar is not satisfied with the application the Registrar can direct the applicants to comply with the provisions of the Act. If the members are aggrieved by such order it is for them to approach the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority in turn. In my opinion, the appeal filed by the builders was not maintainable at all and similarly the revision filed by the builders was also not maintainable. Both ought to have been rejected in limine at the threshold, being not maintainable and as wholly misconceived.
9. In the aforesaid circumstances and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, I allow the petition and make the rule absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b) with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the builders to the petitioner society within four weeks from today.
