- (1.) The State of Maharashtra is the appellant in these appeals by Special Leave. Civil Appeal No. 1149 of 1990 is filed against the judgment of High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4415 of 1987 dated February 27, 1989, which was filed by respondent 1 and 2 challenging the validity of the direction issued by the first appellant on January 19, 1985 and the consequential circular issued by the third appellant on December 5, 1985. By the impugned judgment, the High Court quashed the circulars. Following the said judgment the High Court allowed the Writ Petition No. 5298 of 1987 by its judgment dated February 27, 1989 in which identical relief was sought by respondents 1 and 2 in Civil Appeal No. 1148 of 1990, filed by the State against the said judgment of the High Court.
(2.) The purport of the directions issued by the first appellant on January 19, 1985 is that the tenant-ownership type of Co-operative Housing Societies should amend their bye-laws so as (i) to enable the plot holders to construct multi-storied building with more than one residential tenement on their plots and (ii) to form a society of the owners of the flats of the multi-storeyed buildings which shall be a member of the housing society and be represented by its representative in the Housing Society. When it was brought to the notice of the third appellant that the plot owners were facing difficulties as the housing societies had not carried out amendment of the bye-law pursuant to the directions of the first appellant, he issued the circular on December 5, 1985 threatening to take action under section 14 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. These directions/circulars were questioned by the Housing Societies, inter alia, on the grounds that they completely destroy the basis of such societies and will encourage commercialisation of housing schemes which is meant for individuals on the basis of the tenant ownership and that they are without authority of law and violative of Article 19(1)(c). The appellants did not file their return in the High Court. However, the third respondent contested the writ petition. The contention of the society found favour from the High Courts and the said directions/circulars were quashed.
(3.) Mr. Naik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that the directions/circulars are issued having regard to the necessity of making accommodation available in view of the dearth of accommodation in Pune and Bombay and this is in public interest. To justify the exercise of power by the State Government in issuing the impugned directions/circulars, he relied on sections 4, 14 and 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.;