These directions circulars were questioned by the Housing Societies, inter alia, on the grounds that they companypletely destroy the basis of such societies and will encourage companymercialisation 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 number file their return in the High Court.
Following the said judgment the High Court allowed the Writ Petition No.
However, the third respondent companytested the writ petition.
The purport of the directions issued by the first appellant on January 19, 1985 is that the tenant ownership type of Cooperative Housing Societies should amend their bye laws so as i to enable the plot holders to companystruct 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.
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.
When it was brought to the numberice of the third appellant that the plot owners were facing difficulties as the housing societies had number 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.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court quashed the impugned circulars.
The companytention of the Society found favour from the High Courts and the said directions circulars were quashed.
1149 of 1990 is filed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.4415 of 1987 dated February 27, 1989, which was filed by Respondents 1 and 2 challenging the validity of the directions issued by the first appellant on January 19, 1985 and the companysequential circular issued by the third appellant on December 5, 1985.
N. Kirpal, J. The State of Maharashtra is the appellant in these appeals by Special Leave.
Civil Appeal No.
