As per case facts, Gera Developers Private Limited, a developer, undertook a large development project in Pune with multiple buildings and bungalows, some governed by MOFA and others by RERA. ... The developer intended to form separate cooperative housing societies for different phases and an Apex Body. However, when the developer allegedly failed to take timely and effective steps for society formation, a majority of unit holders, led by Gera's Isle Royale CHS Limited (Respondent 5), initiated the process to form a single cooperative housing society for the entire layout. The District Deputy Registrar (Respondent 3) initially granted registration to this single society. This order was subsequently set aside by the Divisional Joint Registrar (Respondent 2) who remanded the matter for reconsideration. Gera's Isle Royale CHS Limited then filed revision applications before the Minister of Co-operation (Respondent 1), who allowed them, restoring the registration of the single society. Aggrieved by this, Gera Developers Private Limited filed a Writ Petition, arguing that separate societies should be formed for each phase due to distinct statutory regimes and that Respondent 5 had no authority to unilaterally initiate the process. The question arose whether a single cooperative housing society could be legitimately formed for a composite real estate project that includes multiple buildings and units governed by different statutory frameworks (MOFA and RERA), particularly when the promoter failed to initiate the society formation process within the legally stipulated time, and a majority of purchasers opted for a single society due to shared common amenities. Finally, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. The court observed that the promoter has a statutory duty to form a legal entity within a prescribed timeframe, and mere expressions of willingness or preparatory acts do not constitute compliance. Once the promoter fails to act, the right to initiate society formation passes to the purchasers. The court emphasized that the definition of "real estate project" is broad, encompassing common areas and a larger development scheme, not necessarily confined to a single structure. Considering the project was conceived as a composite layout with shared common infrastructure and amenities, and supported by a clear majority of unit holders, forming a single cooperative housing society was found to be effective, avoiding duplication of management and ensuring better coordination. The court concluded that such an arrangement was not contrary to the scheme of law, especially given the integrated nature of the project.