1 of 3 945-WP-1808-2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 945 WRIT PETITION NO. 1808 OF 2020 Snehaprabha Sahakari Bhadekari Malki Gruh Nirmar Sanstha Ltd Latur Through Its Chairman And Another VERSUS Vanmala Sunil Malegaonkar And Others ….. Mr. A. N. Irpatgire, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent-State. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 08.01.2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. By the present petition, the Petitioners are assailing the order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad, in Appeal No.145 of 2017, whereby appeal filed by Respondent No.1 came to be allowed thereby directing the Petitioner-Society to allot one plot to disputant/Respondent No.1. 3. After arguing for some time, learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the learned Member of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench at 2026:BHC-AUG:712 2 of 3 945-WP-1808-2020 Aurangabad, failed to consider the fact that the disputant/Respondent No.1 had not proved that she was enrolled as a member and the sale certificate, membership and related record were found to be fabricated. He further points out that although the issue of limitation was raised neither the Co- operative Court nor the Appellate Court properly addressed the issue of maintainability on the ground of delay. He further submits that since Respondent Nos.3 to 25 were enrolled as members during the tenure of the Administrator/Respondent No.2, they are legally members and, in fact, their membership was never challenged on that count. However, the learned Appellate Court, without considering these aspects, allowed the appeal and thereby allowing the dispute filed by Respondent No.1. 4. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Co- operative Appellate Court. Upon detailed consideration of the matter and the evidence placed on record, it is clear that the issue of membership was an admitted fact and the same was specifically recorded by the learned Appellate Court that Respondent Nos.3 to 25 were enrolled as members during the tenure of the Administrator. It is well settled law that an Administrator has no 3 of 3 945-WP-1808-2020 power to enroll new members. Once the Administrator lacked such authority, the question of allotment of plots by the Administrator in favour of Respondent Nos.3 to 25 does not arise. More particularly, when the record pertaining to membership, share certificates and payment receipts clearly revealed that the plot was allotted to disputant/Respondent No.1, any subsequent change during the period of administration could not be sustained. All these aspects have been duly considered by the learned Appellate Court, which has recorded findings that are reasonable and proper. I, therefore, do not find any perversity in the order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad, in Appeal No.145 of 2017. 5. In view thereof, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Sameer