Introduction
The Bombay High Court, examined the scope and operation of the statutory fiction of deemed membership under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Court considered whether delay in seeking membership, alleged non-compliance with the bye-laws and the existence of pending recovery proceedings for society dues could justify interference with concurrent findings of the statutory authorities declaring the applicants as deemed members. The judgment reiterates the distinction between the right to membership and the society’s independent right to recover arrears, and clarifies the limits of interference in writ jurisdiction.

Facts in Brief
Late Mahendra V. Shah was admitted as a member of the Petitioner Society in respect of certain premises in the building known as New Poornima Apartment. He expired on 19th September 2001 and was survived by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, being his mother and daughter.

It was the case of the Society that substantial maintenance dues were outstanding and that recovery proceedings had been initiated before the Co-operative Court. On 3rd February 2012, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submitted an application seeking membership of the Society and tendered entrance fees of Rs. 100 each. The Society did not communicate any decision within the statutory period of sixty days.

On 25th June 2012, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 preferred an appeal under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 seeking a declaration that they be treated as deemed members. By order dated 19th December 2012, the Divisional Joint Registrar allowed the appeal and declared them deemed members. The Revisional Authority dismissed the Society’s Revision Application on 12th September 2013. The Society thereafter filed the present Writ Petition challenging the concurrent findings of the statutory authorities.

Issues for Consideration
The Society primarily contended that the application was filed nearly eleven years after the demise of the original member and was therefore belated Substantial maintenance dues were allegedly outstanding since 1984. The application did not strictly comply with Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 and Bye-law No. 37. According to the Society, these factors disentitled the heirs from claiming deemed membership.

Findings of the Court
The Court held that delay in applying for membership does not defeat a claim under Section 22(2) of the MCS Act, particularly where the society has failed to take a decision within the statutory period of sixty days, and that the statutory remedy remains available despite lapse of time. It further held that technical or documentary deficiencies in the application are not fatal in the absence of fraud, misrepresentation or competing claims among legal heirs, as the object of such requirements is to guard against disputes and not to create procedural barriers. Most significantly, the Court clarified that pending recovery proceedings for alleged dues do not bar admission to membership, since declaration of membership does not extinguish or prejudice the society’s independent right to recover arrears through appropriate legal proceedings. In the absence of illegality, perversity or mala fides, the High Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction and dismissed the Petition.

Conclusion
The Court found that the competent authority acted within the statutory framework of Section 22(2), applied the law to the facts and reached a reasoned conclusion falling within the range of permissible outcomes. There was no illegality, perversity or mala fides warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. The declaration of deemed membership was therefore sustained. At the same time, the Court clarified that the society’s right to pursue recovery of alleged dues remains intact and unaffected by the order.¹

By - Chaitanyaa Bhandarkar