ORDER : T. MADHAVI DEVI, J. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners are seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to and in connection with the undated common order passed in I.A.No.13 of 2025 in O.P.No.02 of 2025 and in I.A.No.23 of 2025 in O.P.No.07 of 2025 on the file of the Cooperative Tribunal at Hyderabad and to quash or set aside the same holding it as non-est, illegal, irrational and arbitrary and without jurisdiction and also as contrary to law and as being in violation of Section 37 (1) of the Telangana Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act , 1995 and consequently to direct the respondents to follow the ‘per square foot’ model or ‘flat size prorata basis’ model for payment of common area maintenance charges as already approved by the respondent cooperative society and to pass such other order or orders. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioners who are 140 in number are all purchasers of the flats of different extents in a multi-storied residential complex namely ‘Jains Balaji Nilayam Casa Waterside’ situated in Survey No.228 (old Survey No.44/1 & 44/2) at Safilguda, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District through various registered sale deeds. According to the petitioners, the sale deeds recited that maintenance amount was being collected by the developer M/s. Jain Constructions at the rate of Rs.48/- per square foot per annum based on flat size and also recited the obligation of the purchasers to have a residential association and to observe its rules and bye-laws. It is stated that the residential complex comprises of 5 blocks of flats known as A, B, C, D & E and each block consisted of 104 flats totalling to 520 flats with 16 variant extents ranging from 1330 square feet (sft.) to 2635 sft., being 2, 3 and 4 bedroom flats. It is submitted that the developer maintained the complex till September, 2024 and thereafter, the flat owners including the petitioners, formed a society by name JBN Casa Waterside Flat Owners Mutually Aided Cooperative Maintenance Society Limited and registered the same with registration No.TG/MLKG/MACS/2024-62/FOW&M issued by the Registrar-cum-District Cooperative officer, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. An Ad hoc Committee was also appointed by respondent No.3 authority and the bye-laws of the society were also framed and registered. An Ad hoc Committee was also appointed by respondent No.3 authority and the bye-laws of the society were also framed and registered. The required quorum of the General Body meeting as per the bye-laws is 1/3 rd of the total members. 3. According to the petitioners, on 01.09.2024 the first General Body meeting was conducted and all the flat owners of the said residential complex paid the common area maintenance charges at Rs.4/- per square foot per month based on the flat size for two quarters period, i.e., 6 months period covering the period from October, 2024 to March, 2025. Thereafter, on 03.11.2024, the second General Body meeting was held and a 25 Member Committee was approved to be formed who were all members of different flat sizes to work and analyse the common area maintenance model and the Committee submitted its report on 08.12.2024 recommending hybrid model by dividing the common area maintenance into two components, (i) building expenses based on flat size; and (ii) other common expenses equally/uniformly by all the flat owners. It is submitted that on 15.12.2024, the third General Body meeting was held and the members of the General Body proceeded to physical voting process and all the members were required to opt for one out of three models, i.e., (1) Hybrid model proposed by the Board of Directors of the society, (2) Per square foot model proposed by the Board of Directors of the society and (3) Hybrid model proposed by the common area maintenance Committee. A total of 129 members out of 342 registered members attended the meeting and it was more than 1/3 rd of the General Body members, i.e., the required quorum. 37 votes proposed the Hybrid model and 70 votes proposed the ‘per square foot’ model and 20 votes proposed the common area committee hybrid model and 2 votes remained invalid. Therefore, the Cooperative Maintenance Society Limited proposed ‘Per square foot’ model for common area maintenance charges. 4. Aggrieved by the said resolution, one of the members of the society, i.e., respondent No.5 in this Writ Petition preferred O.P.No.02 of 2024 before the Cooperative Tribunal at Hyderabad seeking a uniform/equal payment of maintenance charges and obtained an interim order to that effect. 4. Aggrieved by the said resolution, one of the members of the society, i.e., respondent No.5 in this Writ Petition preferred O.P.No.02 of 2024 before the Cooperative Tribunal at Hyderabad seeking a uniform/equal payment of maintenance charges and obtained an interim order to that effect. Respondents 6 to 100 in this Writ Petition preferred another O.P., i.e., O.P.No.07 of 2025 seeking similar relief of equal/uniform maintenance charges by all the flat owners and they also obtained an interim order to the said effect against respondent society. The respondent society herein representing all its members contested the interlocutory applications in I.A.No.13 of 2025 in O.P.No.02 of 2025 and I.A.No.23 of 2025 in O.P.No.07 of 2025. The Tribunal, vide undated final order in both the I.As., declared the monthly maintenance charges of the JBN Casa Waterside Flat Owners Mutually Aided Cooperative Maintenance Society Limited as proposed by its Board of Directors ‘per square foot’ model as arbitrary and directed to have collection of common area maintenance charges equally/uniformly by suspending the notice issued by the said cooperative maintenance society. It is stated that thereafter, the whole society got divided into two groups and there was unrest in the society leading to filing of this Writ Petition challenging the orders of the Tribunal. 5. It is stated that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the O.P. itself as Section 37 (1) of the Telangana Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act , 1995 (for short, ‘the Act’) as adapted under the Telangana Adaptation Order, 2016 provides that the disputes as referred to in Section 37 (1) of the Act are to be referred to the Registrar for a decision and an appeal against the decision of the Registrar is to be preferred to the Cooperative Tribunal and similar view has been expressed by this Court in its judgment dt.21.01.2025 in W.P.No.30605 of 2024. It is further submitted that the impugned common order was passed by a Single Member of the Tribunal, i.e., without a Judicial Member and therefore, it is illegal, irrational and illogical. Further, it is stated that the common order is not dated and hence, is not sustainable. 6. It is further submitted that the impugned common order was passed by a Single Member of the Tribunal, i.e., without a Judicial Member and therefore, it is illegal, irrational and illogical. Further, it is stated that the common order is not dated and hence, is not sustainable. 6. This Court, vide orders dt.30.04.2025 in I.A.No.2 of 2025 had granted interim suspension of the common order passed in I.A.No.13 of 2025 in O.P.No.02 of 2025 and also in I.A.No.23 of 2025 in O.P.No.07 of 2025 and the society was directed to follow the procedure that was being followed prior to the said common order of the Tribunal for collection of the maintenance charges. 7. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents and learned Government Pleader for Cooperation for official respondents supported the order of the Tribunal and have also referred to various clauses in the sale deeds to demonstrate that the maintenance was supposed to be paid uniformly by all the flat owners. 8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the common order of the Tribunal is challenged on the following grounds. (i) It is not dated and no judicial order can be passed without a date. (ii) The single member of the Tribunal has passed this order and therefore, it is not sustainable. (iii) The Tribunal ought not to have entertained the O.P. as Section 37 of the Telangana Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act , 1995 provided that the members have to approach the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for resolution of dispute other than elections. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgments in support of his contentions. (1) Sachin Malpani and others Vs. Nilam Patil and others , [W.P.No.9179 of 2022 of Bombay High Court dt.04.08.2025] (2) M/s. India Bulls Centrum Owners Welfare Cooperative Society Vs. Vemparala Srikant and others, [Law Finder Doc Id # 1893261 : First Appeal No.641 of 2018 against C.C.No.137 of 2017, dt.91.01.2021 of Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ]. (3) Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others , [ (1976) 1 SCC 671 ] (4) Venus Co-op. Housing Society and another Vs. Dr. J.Y. Detwani and others , [2002 SCC OnLine Bom 1457] (5) Prestige High Fields Flat Owners Welfare and Maintenance Cooperative Society Limited Vs. State of Telangana rep. (3) Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others , [ (1976) 1 SCC 671 ] (4) Venus Co-op. Housing Society and another Vs. Dr. J.Y. Detwani and others , [2002 SCC OnLine Bom 1457] (5) Prestige High Fields Flat Owners Welfare and Maintenance Cooperative Society Limited Vs. State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Cooperation and others , W.P. Nos.28433 and 28423 of 2024 of Telangana High Court dt.16.10.2024. (6) Milkiyat Singh and others, etc. Vs. Union of India and others, etc., Law Finder Doc Id # 510605 : 2008(45) RCR(Civil) 568 (7) M/s. Venkateshwara Ortho Health Care Pvt. Ltd. (Srikara Hospitals) Vs. Mr. Linga Lala Lajpat Rai and others , [C.R.P.No.508 of 2025 of Telangana High Court dt.18.02.2025] (8) M/s. Bollant Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Law (Legal Affairs, Legislative Affairs and Justice) Department and others , [W.P.No.4990 of 2024 of Telangana High Court dt.27.02.2024] (9) The State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkarhabib Mohamed and others , 1952 AIR (SC) 75 : 1952 SCR 284 . 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the above judgments in support of his contentions that though common amenities are enjoyed by all the members of the society irrespective of area of flat they hold, the Courts have held that the argument that large flat holders did not get any additional benefit and priority of preference in the undivided share and did not get any additional benefit, cannot be countenanced and that the common expenses shall be charged to the apartment owner according to the percentage of undivided interest in the common areas and facilities. However, this Court is of the opinion that this issue on merits is yet to be decided by the Tribunal and this Court is not deciding the issue on merits in the O.P., at this stage. Therefore, the said judgments are not being considered at this stage. 11. As regards the first ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order of the Tribunal is undated and therefore, not sustainable, this Court finds that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Venkateshwara Ortho Health Care Pvt. Ltd. (Srikara Hospitals) Vs. Mr. 11. As regards the first ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order of the Tribunal is undated and therefore, not sustainable, this Court finds that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Venkateshwara Ortho Health Care Pvt. Ltd. (Srikara Hospitals) Vs. Mr. Linga Lala Lajpat Rai and others (7 supra) had stayed similar undated order by holding that every judicial forum is required to assign the date while issuing orders. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 12. As regards the second ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court finds that the Telangana Cooperative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 prescribe the procedure to be followed and Rule 13 thereof refers to distribution of work and the Chairman of the Tribunal shall distribute the work among the members of the Tribunal subject to the following: (a) A single Member shall hear all appeals, review applications for admission and interim orders and the Chairman shall entrust this work by rotation to all the members. (b) All the appeals under Sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 after admission and interim orders, if any, shall be heard by two Member Bench consisting of a Judicial Member. Thus, the contention of the petitioners that a Single Member of the Tribunal could not have disposed of the I.As., is not sustainable. Thus, the ground raised to this effect is rejected. 13. As regards the third ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court finds that the dispute in this case has to be considered under the Telangana Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act , 1995, as the respondent society was registered under Telangana Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act , 1995. Section 37 of the Telangana Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act , 1995 which refers to ‘settlement of disputes’ reads as under: “ 37. Section 37 of the Telangana Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act , 1995 which refers to ‘settlement of disputes’ reads as under: “ 37. (1) If any dispute arises touching the constitution, management or business of a Co-operative Society, and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto:- (a) among members, past members or a person claiming through members, past members and deceased members; or (b) between a member, past member or a person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the Co- operative Society, its Board, Director, office-bearer or liquidator, past or present; or (c) between the Co-operative Society or its Board and any past Board, Director, office bearer, or the Nominee, Heirs, or Legal Representatives of any deceased Director, deceased Officer, of the Co-operative Society; or (d) between the Co-operative Society and any other Co-operative Society; or (e) between the promoters of a Co-operative Society and the Registrar; or a Co-operative Society and the Registrar; or (f) between a Co-operative Society and liquidator of another Co-operative Society, or between the liquidators of two or more Co-operative Societies; Such disputes may be referred to the Co-operative Tribunal for decision: Provided that no dispute shall be referred under this section to the Co-operative Tribunal unless the disputing parties exhausted all remedies that may be available in the bye-laws for the settlement of disputes. (2) Any dispute relating to elections held to a Co-operative Society may be referred to the Co-operative Tribunal for decision.” 14. Further, it is noticed that vide G.O.Ms.No.28, Agriculture & Cooperation (Coop.II) Department, dt.19.04.2016, there has been an amendment of sub-Section (1) of Section 37 of the Act providing that the disputes referred to in Clauses (a) to (f) may be referred to the Registrar for decision and an appeal on the decision of the Registrar vests with the Cooperative Tribunal. However, the operation of G.O.Ms.No.28 dt.19.04.2016 has been stayed until further orders by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.23450 of 2016 and batch as per the common order dt.26.07.2016 passed in W.P.M.P.No.28888 of 2016 and batch in the said batch of Writ Petitions. It is noticed that the said interim orders are in force as on today. Therefore, the amended provision cannot be applied to this case and the O.P. before the Tribunal under Section 37 of the Act is maintainable. 15. It is noticed that the said interim orders are in force as on today. Therefore, the amended provision cannot be applied to this case and the O.P. before the Tribunal under Section 37 of the Act is maintainable. 15. In view of the finding given on the first ground that the impugned order which is not dated is unsustainable, the undated impugned common order of the Cooperative Tribunal in I.A.No.13 of 2025 in O.P.No.02 of 2025 and in I.A.No.23 of 2025 in O.P.No.07 of 2025 is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to rehear the parties on the interim applications and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 16. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 17. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition including I.A.No.3 of 2025 shall stand closed.