Megha 904_wp_2319 & 3177_2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2319 OF 2025 Shiv Triveni Gallaria Co-operative Housing Society Limited ...Petitioner V/s. Vitthal Vishnu Parke and Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3177 OF 2025 Shiv Triveni Gallaria Co-operative Housing Society Limited ...Petitioner V/s. Baburao D. Shelkar and Ors. ...Respondents ________________ Mr. Ketan Joshi i/b. Mr. Sushant Joshi with Mr. Karak Upadhyay for the Petitioner in both the Petitions. Smt. S.A. Prabhune, AGP for Respondent -State in WP/2319/2025 Mr. A.A. Alaspurkar, AGP for Respondent-State in WP/3177/2025. Dr. Uday Warunjikar with Ms. Sakshi Inamdar, Mr. Jenish Dinesh Jain and Mr. Sumit Shankar Kale for Respondent No.1 in WP/3177/2025 and for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in WP/2319/2025. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 29 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1) The Petitioner in these Petitions challenges orders passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar dismissing the Revision Applications filed by it Page No. 1 of 4 29 September 2026 2026:BHC-AS:39781 Megha 904_wp_2319 & 3177_2025 and confirming the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar directing grant of membership in favour of the contesting Respondents. 2) I have heard Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Dr. Warunjikar, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents and the learned AGPs appearing for the Respondent-State in respective Petitions and have considered the submissions canvassed by them. 3) Dr. warunjikar submits that registry is not accepting the vakalatnama of Advocate Mr. Jenish Jain in Writ Petition No.2319 of 2025 on the ground that some other Advocate has filed appearance on behalf of Respondent No.1. Dr. Warunjikar clarifies that no vakalatnama was filed by any Advocate on behalf of Respondent No.1. With a view to facilitate final disposal of the Petitions on merits, registry to accept the vakalatnama of Advocate Mr. Jenish Jain. 4) In the present case, the claim of the Petitioner-Society is against the developer towards maintenance in respect of the units, which are purchased by the contesting Respondents. The Petition does not contain any positive averment that the developer was made member of the society in respect of the unsold units. It is not known as to whether bills were raised on the developer by the society, which remained unpaid. Therefore, it is difficult to hold in the facts of the present case that there were any dues of the housing society within the meaning of Section 154B-7 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act). In my view, therefore, membership cannot be denied to the Page No. 2 of 4 29 September 2026 Megha 904_wp_2319 & 3177_2025 contesting Respondent on the ground that there are dues of the housing society within the meaning of clause (a) of Section 154B- 7 of the MCS Act. 5) Reliance by Mr. Joshi on judgment of this Court in Monarch Orchid Co-operative Housing Ltd. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1 is inapposite. The judgment is rendered in peculiar facts of that case in which the persons claiming membership had undertaken to clear the past maintenance dues of the Society at the time of purchase of the Flat in the auction proceedings. In Monarch Orchid (supra) this Court has also referred to judgment in Banganga Anurag Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Mumbai & Ors. 2 in which this Court has taken a view that when there is a dispute with regard to dues of the housing society, the proper remedy would be to get those disputes settled under Section 91 of the MCS Act and mere pendency of demand of the Society in respect of the such disputed dues cannot be a reason for refusing to grant membership to purchaser of unit in the Society. In the present case, it cannot be contended that there are admitted dues qua the units payable by the Respondents. Therefore, the contesting Respondents cannot be denied membership only on the ground that developer did not pay maintenance dues to the Society. 6) Also of relevance is the fact that the contesting Respondent- Baburao D. Shelke in Writ Petition No.3177 of 2025 has apparently approached Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal 1 Writ Petition No.8034 of 2025, decided on 14 July 2026 2 2026(3) ALL MR 71 Page No. 3 of 4 29 September 2026 Megha 904_wp_2319 & 3177_2025 Commission, Thane, (District Forum) by filing Consumer Complaint No.361 of 2018 and by order dated 16 December 2021, the District Forum directed Respondent Nos.1 to 4 therein to pay maintenance dues in respect of the period upto 20 October 2017. The Appeal preferred by the Petitioner -Society against order passed by the District Forum has been dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai by order dated 19 June 2026. 7) In the light of the above position, no case is made out for interference in the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar and Divisional Joint Registrar. Writ Petitions are devoid of merits and are accordingly disposed of. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 4 of 4 29 September 2026 Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 30/09/2026 14:53:41