22 March 2024 Administrative Law >> Constitution & Law Procedure   |   Property/Real Estate Law >> Property & Real Estate  

Facts:

In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court addressed a writ petition filed by a co-operative housing society (hereinafter "Petitioner") challenging an enquiry report (hereinafter "Report") into alleged irregularities concerning land allotment and construction practices.

The Petitioner received land allotment from the State in 1964. A dispute arose regarding the allotment, which was settled by agreement in 1981. Subsequently, the Petitioner constructed buildings and achieved sub-classified tenant co-operative housing society status in 2018.

However, the Pune Municipal Corporation discovered unauthorized construction on the Petitioner's land in 2021. This prompted a complaint from the legal heir (son of a deceased member) of the Petitioner (Respondent No. 4), alleging irregularities.

The Deputy Registrar (Respondent No. 2) initiated an enquiry, and the Enquiry Officer (Respondent No. 3) submitted the Report in April 2022.

Petitioner's Contentions and Court's Findings:

The Petitioner challenged the Report on three primary grounds:

1. Absence of Alternative Remedy: The Petitioner argued that the enquiry process lacked an alternative remedy under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (MCS Act).

The Court held that the MCS Act did not provide an alternative remedy for challenging an enquiry report itself.

2. Unauthorized Enquiry and Non-Member Complaint: The Petitioner contended that the Report lacked authority as it stemmed from a complaint by a non-member (Respondent No. 4) and was not conducted by the authorized officer.

The Court clarified that Respondent No. 4, though not a member at the time of the complaint, held a valid interest as the legal heir of a deceased member. The Court further explained that while the authorized officer may not have personally collected all data, the Report being prepared by the designated authority sufficed.

3. Premature Challenge: The Court determined that the Petitioner's challenge was premature. The Report, containing recommendations based on alleged violations, did not constitute a final order. Therefore, challenging it at this stage would be premature.

Conclusion:

The Court dismissed the writ petition. However, they granted the Petitioner a four-week window to pursue further legal action before the Respondents could take any coercive steps. The Court also emphasized that their decision did not address the merits of the Report's contents.