1 of 3 911-wp-5919-23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5919 OF 2023 Deccan Gymkhana Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ..Petitioner Versus Ravindra Kulkarni & Ors. ..Respondents __________ Mr. Sarang S. Aradhye a/w. Gauri Velankar for Petitioner. Mr. Nachiket Khaladkar for Respondent No.3. Mr. H. D. Mulla, AGP for State/ Respondent Nos.1 & 2. __________ CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATE : 14 NOVEMBER 2025 PC : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with consent of the parties. 2. The dispute before the Court turns on the exercise of power under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 sought membership on the strength of a registered deed of assignment. That deed is already under challenge in a pending dispute under Section 91 of the Act. The society places reliance on the lease deed. According to the society, no assignment could have taken place without its prior permission. This condition flows from the terms of the lease. The authorities failed to examine this foundational requirement. They Gokhale VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Digitally signed by VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date: 2025.11.14 15:06:53 +0530 2 of 3 911-wp-5919-23 treated the deed of assignment as an unquestioned basis for conferring membership. They did so without addressing whether the deed itself suffered from a legal infirmity due to want of permission. When a statute entrusts an authority with jurisdiction to decide on admission to membership, the authority must consider all relevant conditions that bear on the validity of the transaction relied upon. This link was not examined. 3. The record shows that the sole aspect requiring fresh scrutiny is the plea regarding want of prior permission of the petitioner society. The authorities had to address this issue before recording any conclusion on membership. Since this was not done, a limited remand becomes necessary. The remand is confined only to this point so that the authority examines whether the lease required prior permission and, if so, what legal effect follows from its absence. 4. In view of the above, the petition deserves to be allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (B) and (C). This restores the matter to the stage where the authority can undertake a proper inquiry on the limited issue. 5. The proceedings are remitted to Respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 shall decide afresh the question regarding the requirement of prior permission under the lease and its effect on the deed of assignment. The inquiry shall be confined to this issue alone so that the adjudication remains focused and does not widen 3 of 3 911-wp-5919-23 the scope of remand. 6. Respondent No. 4 shall conclude the exercise within three weeks from the date on which the parties appear. Prompt disposal will avoid further delay in a matter that has already seen prolonged proceedings. 7. The parties shall appear before Respondent No. 4 on 24 November 2025 at 10.30 a.m. The authority shall then proceed in accordance with law. 8. The petition stands disposed of. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)