Pravinkumar Jethalal Dave Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Bombay High Court)
The writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged orders passed in revision under Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, whereby the revisional authority had set aside the appellate authority’s decision granting membership of Flat No. 12 and Garage No. 12 in a co-operative housing society to the petitioner. The revisions had been filed by the respondent society and a person claiming to be a tenant. The revisional authority interfered mainly on the ground that the nomination form relied upon by the petitioner contained overwriting and was not unimpeachable.
The petitioner’s case was that his father, the sole member and owner of the flat, had executed a valid nomination in his favour. Upon the father’s death, he was survived by ten legal representatives. Six legal representatives issued written no-objection certificates supporting the petitioner’s membership. One legal representative had predeceased, two others did not object, and only one opposed the petitioner’s claim. The competent authority had directed that membership be conferred upon the petitioner.
The High Court reiterated the settled legal position regarding nomination. Relying on Supreme Court decisions in Indrani Wahi vs. The Registrar, West Bengal and Others (2016) and Sarbati Devi vs. Smt. Usha Devi (1984), the Court noted that nomination does not create ownership in favour of the nominee. A nominee acts as a representative for the legal heirs and does not become the absolute owner to the exclusion of others unless succession law independently supports such a claim. The nomination enables the society to deal with an identified person after the member’s death.
