Bombay High Court

DR. LALCHANDRA BADRIPRASAD TIWARIversusRAGHULEELA MEGAMALL KANDIVALI (WEST)

Decided: 25 June 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SANDEEP V MARNE

Holding

A Registrar may act suo‑moto on information from a single member or third‑person only after an independent assessment; failure to do so makes the order under Section 83 ultra vires.

Summary

The cooperative society Raghuleela Megamall filed a writ petition challenging the Deputy Registrar’s order dated 2 March 2019 that appointed an enquiry officer under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960, on the basis of a complaint by a single member, Mr. L.B. Tiwari. The petition argued that the Registrar could exercise suo‑moto power only on a requisition signed by at least one‑fifth of the members and that the Deputy Registrar had not applied an independent mind, rendering the order ultra vires and barred by res judicata. The respondents contended that the Registrar’s suo‑moto power permits reliance on any information, including a single member’s complaint, provided an independent assessment is made. The Court examined precedents such as Ashok Saha, Janhit Nagari, Jeevan Niwas and Jayprakash Sahakari, concluding that while a complaint can be a source of information, the Registrar must independently evaluate it before ordering an inquiry. Finding that the Deputy Registrar merely reproduced the complaint without independent assessment, the Court set aside both the Deputy Registrar’s order and the Divisional Joint Registrar’s confirming order, allowing the revision. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and the enquiry was halted.

Issues considered

The scope of the Registrar’s suo‑moto power under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960, particularly whether a single member’s complaint suffices to initiate an enquiry.
Whether the Deputy Registrar’s order dated 2 March 2019 is ultra vires for lacking the requisite one‑fifth member requisition and independent assessment.
Whether the earlier order of the Deputy Registrar is barred by the principle of res judicata.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 83, 85

Subjects

cooperative society
Section 83
suo‑moto power
enquiry officer
revision petition
judicial review
registrar powers
res judicata

Judgment

Neeta Sawant WP-2980 OF 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2980 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10703 OF 2025

Raghuleela Megamall Kandivali (West) ...Petitioner
V/s.
1. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-
operative Society, Mumbai Division,
Mumbai.
2. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, R-South Ward, Mumbai.
3. Mr. L.B. Tiwari ...Respondents

WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10703 OF 2025
Dr. Lalchandra Badriprasad Tiwari ...Applicant
In the matter between :
Raghuleela Megamall Kandivali (West) ...Petitioner
V/s.
1. Ld. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-
operative Society, Mumbai Division,
Mumbai.
2. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, R-South Ward, Mumbai.
3. Mr. L.B. Tiwari ...Respondents

Page No.1 of 21
25 June 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-2980 OF 2021

________________
Mr. G.S.Godbole, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nilkanth Bhadrashete, Mr.
Raghavendra Mehrotra, Mr. Irfan A. Shaikh and Ms. M.J. Shaikh i/b.
Lawkhart Legal Advocates & Legal Consultants, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Y.S. Kochare, 'B' Panel Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State.

Ms. Anima Mishra with Mr. Anuj Singh, for Respondent No.3 and for
Applicant in IA-10703-2025.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Judgment Reserved on : 17 June 2026.
Judgment Pronounced on : 25 June 2026.

JUDGMENT:

1) By this Petition, the Petitioner-Society has challenged order
dated 9 March 2020 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, Mumbai Division (Divisional Joint Registrar)
dismissing Revision Application No.212 of 2019 and con0rming the order
dated 2 March 2019 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, R/S Ward, Mumbai (Deputy Registrar). Order dated 2 March
2019 is passed by the Deputy Registrar in exercise of powers under
Section 83 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS
Act) appointing an authorised of0cer to conduct enquiry into the affairs
of the Society.

2) The Petitioner is a cooperative society formed by occupiers
of units in Raghuleela Megamall, Kandivali (W) Mumbai. The Managing

Page No.2 of 21
25 June 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-2980 OF 2021

Committee of Petitioner-Society was elected and took charge of the
Society on 31 January 2018. Respondent No.3 is a member of the
Petitioner-Society. According to the Petitioner, Respondent No.3
misrepresented to the members that he is an Advocate. That his
engagement was discontinued by the Society. That the Society passed a
resolution in the Annual General Body Meeting for initiation of actions
against Respondent No.3 and his wife. According to the Petitioner,
Respondent No.3 started 0ling complaints against the Society due to
personal vengeance. On 9 March 2018, Respondent No.3 0led complaint
before the Deputy Registrar, on the basis of which enquiry was ordered
under Section 83 of the MCS Act by appointment of Enquiry Of0cer by
the Deputy Registrar vide order dated 13 April 2018. The Petitioner
challenged order dated 13 April 2018 before the Divisional Joint
Registrar, who proceeded to set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar
and remanded the case for fresh consideration before the Deputy
Registrar vide order dated 14 August 2018. In the remanded proceedings,
the Deputy Registrar passed fresh order dated 2 March 2019 and once
again appointed Enquiry Of0cer under Section 83 of the MCS Act to
conduct enquiry into affairs of the Society. The Petitioner 0led Revision
Application No.212 of 2019 challenging the order of the Deputy Registrar
before the Divisional Joint Registrar. By order dated 9 March 2020, the
Divisional Joint Registrar has dismissed Revision Application No.212 of
2019 0led by the Petitioner-Society.

3) Accordingly, the Petitioner-Society has 0led the present
Petition challenging the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar

Page No.3 of 21
25 June 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-2980 OF 2021

dated 9 March 2020, which has con0rmed the order dated 2 March 2019
passed by the Deputy Registrar. By order dated 19 July 2021 this Court
stayed the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar. By order dated 21
February 2024 the Petition was admitted, and order dated 2 March 2019
passed by the Deputy Registrar has been stayed. The Petition is called
out for 0nal hearing.

4) Mr. Godbole, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Petitioner submits that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar on 2
March 2019 is ex-facie illegal and in the teeth of provisions of Section 83
of the MCS Act. That the order of the Deputy Registrar is passed acting
on complaint of Respondent No.3, who is member of the Society. That
provisions of Section 83 required requisition by 1/5 th of the members.
That Deputy Registrar has not exercised powers suo moto and has acted
only on the basis of complaint of Respondent No.3. That the Deputy
Registrar has not applied his mind independently for suo moto exercise of
powers under Section 83 of the MCS Act. He relies on judgment of this
Court in Ashok Saha and Ors. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1
in support of his contention that suo moto power cannot be exercised by
the Deputy Registrar. Mr. Godbole also relies on judgment of the Apex
Court in S.D.N. Roy & S.K. Banerjee & Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors.
2

5) Mr. Godbole further submits that order of the Deputy
Registrar dated 2 March 2019 is otherwise barred by principle of res
judicata. That the earlier order passed by the Deputy Registrar on 13
1 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 502
2 1973 3 SCC 119

Page No.4 of 21
25 June 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-2980 OF 2021

April 2018 acting on complaint of Respondent No.3 was set aside by the
Divisional Joint Registrar vide order dated 14 August 2018 by relying on
judgment of this Court in Ashok Saha (supra). He submits that though
proceedings are remanded by the Divisional Joint Registrar, the remand
was for verifying the other factors (not complaint of Respondent No.3)
for the purpose of exercise of suo moto power under Section 83 of the
MCS Act. He submits that while passing order dated 2 March 2019, the
Deputy Registrar has not taken into consideration any material other
than complaint of Respondent No.3. Mr. Godbole accordingly prays for
setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Registrar and
Divisional Joint Registrar.

6) Ms. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No.3 opposes the Petition submitting that the Deputy Registrar and the
Divisional Joint Registrar have recorded concurrent 0ndings against the
Petitioner-Society. That mass irregularities are committed in the affairs
of the Society. That the Managing Committee has withdrawn huge
amount from funds of the Society without taking approval of the AGM.
That the Committee has granted 0nancial aid to NGO. That 30
housekeeping staff are appointed while disbursing salaries to 56 staff.
That the Managing Committee has spent additional expenses of
Rs.80,000/- on housekeeping. That therefore the Deputy Registrar has
exercised powers under Section 83 of the MCS Act for conduct of enquiry
into the affairs of the Society. As of now, mere Enquiry Of0cer is
appointed and no prejudice is caused to the Society or its Managing
Committee. That the enquiry will bear out the truth.

Page No.5 of 21
25 June 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-2980 OF 2021

7) Ms. Mishra submits that the Deputy Registrar is entitled to
act on the complaint 0led by member for exercise of suo moto powers.
That in the present case, complaint of Respondent No.3 is used as a
source information by the Deputy Registrar, who has applied his
independent mind to the material brought to his notice. In support of
her contention that complaint of a member or third party can be taken
into consideration by the Deputy Registrar, Ms. Mishra relies on
judgment of this Court in Janhit Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit,
Pune V/s. State of Maharashtra and Others3. She also relies on
judgment of this Court in Jeevan Niwas Co-operative Housing Society
LImited and Another V/s. State of Maharashtra and Others 4. Ms. Mishra
accordingly submits that the Deputy Registrar has correctly exercised
suo moto power under Section 83 of the MCS Act. That the Petitioner and
its Managing Committee would get full opportunity of defending
themselves in the enquiry. She prays for dismissal of the Petition.

8) Mr. Kochare, the learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos.
1 and 2-State also opposes the Petition. He submits that wider
interpretation is required to be given to the term ‘suo moto’ used in
Section 83 of the MCS Act, recognizing power to act on the compliant. He
relies on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Jayprakash
Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Mrt. V/s. State of Maharashtra and
Ors.5

3 Writ Petition No.1286 of 2022 decided on 15 December 2023.
4 Writ Petition No.1953 of 2007 decided on 17 March 2016.
5 Writ Petition No.1190 of 2022 decided on 22 March 2022.

Page No.6 of 21
25 June 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-2980 OF 2021

9) Rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties now fall my
consideration.

10) Petitioner-Society is aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy
Registrar in ordering enquiry into its affairs and appointing an
authorised of0cer to conduct such enquiry in exercise of powers under
Section 83 of the MCS Act. The decision of the Deputy Registrar is
challenged essentially on the ground that the Deputy Registrar has
exercised jurisdiction under Section 83 of the MCS Act by acting on a
complaint made by one member when provisions of Section 83 require
requisition by atleast 1/5th members of the Society. It would therefore be
apt to consider provisions of Section 83 of the MCS, Act which are as
under:

83. Inquiry by Registrar.—

1(1) The Registrar may suo motu, or, on the application of the one-0fth
members of the society or on the basis of Special Report under the third
proviso to sub-section (5B) of section 81, himself or by a person duly
authorised by him in writing, in this behalf, shall hold an inquiry into
the constitution, working and 0nancial conditions of the society.

(2) Before holding any such inquiry on an application, the Registrar
may [having regard to the nature of allegations and the inquiry
involved, require the applicant to deposit with him such sum of money
as he may determine,] towards the cost of the inquiry. If the allegations
made in the application are substantially proved at the inquiry, the
deposit shall be refunded to the applicant, and the Registrar may under
section 85, after following the procedure laid down in that section,
direct from whom and to what extent the cost of the inquiry should be
recovered. If it is proved that the allegations were false, vexatious or
malicious, the Registrar may likewise direct that such cost shall be
recovered from the applicant. Where the result of the inquiry shows
that the allegations were not false, vexatious or malicious, but could not
be proved, such cost may be borne by the State Government.

Page No.7 of 21
25 June 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-2980 OF 2021

(3) (a) All of0cers, members and past members of the society in respect
of which an inquiry is held, and any other person who, in the opinion of
the of0cer holding the inquiry is in possession of information, books
and papers relating to the society, shall furnish such information as in
their possession, and produce all books and papers relating to the
society which are in their custody or power, and otherwise give to the
of0cer holding an inquiry all assistance in connection with the inquiry
which they can reasonably give.

(b) If any such person refuses to produce to the Registrar or any person
authorised by him under sub-section (1), any book or papers which it is
his duty under clause (a) to produce or to answer any question which is
put to him by the Registrar or the person authorised by the Registrar in
pursuance of sub-clause (a), the Registrar or the person authorised by
the Registrar may certify the refusal and the Registrar, after hearing any
statement which may be offered in defence, punish the defaulter with a
penalty not exceeding [0ve thousand rupees]. Any sum imposed as
penalty under this section shall, on the application by the Registrar or
the person authorised by him, to a Magistrate having jurisdiction, be
recoverable by the Magistrate as if it were a 0ne imposed by himself.

(c) The Registrar or the of0cer authorised by him shall complete the
inquiry and submit his report as far as possible within a period of six
months and in any case not later than nine months.

(4) The result of any inquiry under this section shall be communicated
to the society whose affairs have been investigated.

(5) It shall be competent for the Registrar to withdraw any inquiry from
the of0cer to whom it is entrusted, and to hold the inquiry himself or
entrust it to any other person as he deems 0t.

11) Thus, under Section 83, the Registrar can order enquiry in
the following 3 situations:

(i)suo-moto
(ii)on application of 1/5th members of the Society, or
(iii)on the basis of special report under the Third Proviso to sub-
section 5(b) of Section 81.

Page No.8 of 21
25 June 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-2980 OF 2021

12) Mr. Godbole, has relied upon judgment of this Court in
Ashok Saha, in which it is held in paras-6 and 7 as under:

6. Mr. D'Costa, Respondent No. 4 who appeared in person, submitted
that the Registrar even otherwise of his own is permitted under the Act
to take such action and can invoke W.P. No. 544.11 Section 83 and order
an enquiry. Then merely because a reference is made to the complaint
0led should not be the reason to overlook the enquiry so conducted as
the Registrar or the other of0cers may not be aware of the affairs and
mismanagement of the society. Therefore, this is the only way whereby
any other person/member of the society and/or even in the given case, a
third person can 0le complaint and revoke power of the Registrar.
Admittedly, Respondent No. 4 is the member of the society and not the
third person.

7 .In my view, not only the Registrar but there are of0cers who are
responsible and have various obligations under the Act who are bound
to look into the affairs of the society from time to time. Therefore, the
Registrar can take note of information so received and may of his own
proceed to hold the enquiry. In the present case, it is based upon the
complaint. Therefore it is necessary that such application or complaint
should be supported by one-third of the members of the society. The
aspect that some members or one member is against the particular
action of the society/managing committee, that itself should not be the
reason to invoke the provisions of Section 83 of the M.C.S. Act. But if an
application is 0led by the requisite members of the society, the
Registrar is under obligation to take action as contemplated.

13) I had an occasion to interpret provisions of Section 83 of the
MCS Act in the context of judgment of this Court in Ashok Saha (supra)
in Janhit Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit (supra). After taking
into consideration, the ratio of the judgments of this Court in Vitthal
Co-operative Housing Society Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar CSMD and
ors.6 and Ashok Saha, this Court held in paras-10 to 13 as under :

10. Thus, under section 83 of the MCS Act, inquiry can be held into the
constitution working or 0nancial conditions of a Society under three

6 2015 2 MH.L.J. 452

Page No.9 of 21
25 June 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-2980 OF 2021

eventualities viz. (i) suo moto by Registrar, (ii) on application of 1/5th
members of the Society and (iii) on the basis of special report under 3
rd proviso of section 81 (5B). It must be noted here that the word ‘may’
is used for holding of suo moto inquiry by Registrar whereas the word
‘shall’ is used for holding inquiry at the instance of application by 1/5th
members of the Society or on the basis of special report. Thus, statutory
scheme is such that if 1/5th members of the Society make an
application, holding of inquiry is mandatory. On the contrary, use of the
word ‘may’ for exercise of power of the Registrar to hold suo moto
inquiry indicates that upon receipt of an information, the Registrar may
or may not order inquiry. For the purpose of holding inquiry suo moto,
the Registrar can always receive information from various sources. One
such source could be in the form of a complaint made by persons who is
not a member. Thus, there cannot be an absolute proposition that a
non-member can never 0le a complaint with the Registrar or that the
Registrar cannot look into such complaint for suo moto ordering an
inquiry. The only difference between Registrar’s suo moto power to hold
inquiry and inquiry on application of 1/5th members is that the
Registrar may or may not exercise suo moto upon receipt of complaint
from a non-member, but he is bound to hold inquiry on receipt of
requisition from 1/5th members of the Society. Thus if a non-member
makes an application to the Registrar, the Registrar is not bound to hold
an inquiry unlike the situation where 1/5th of the members 0le an
application for holding inquiry. I am unable to agree with the
submission of Mr. Panchpor that under no circumstances, the Registrar
can entertain an application by non-member or ex-employee for
ordering an inquiry under section 83 of the MCS Act. In a given
circumstance, a complaint by non-member can become a source of
information for the Registrar for exercise of suo moto power. Thus
everything would depend of facts of each case, the nature of
information divulged in a compliant, familiarity of complainant with
affairs of society and application of mind by the Registrar to such
information.

11. Reliance is placed by Mr. Panchpor on the Judgment of Single Bench
of this Court in Vithalnagar Co-operative Housing Society (supra). In
that case, the application was 0led by a non-member demanding
institution of inquiry under section 83. This court held in paragraph No.
3, 4 and 6 as under :-

xxx

12. Mr. Panchpor would also rely upon Judgment of this Court in Ashok
Saha (supra) in which it is held in paragraph No. 7 as under :-

xxx

Page No.10 of 21
25 June 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-2980 OF 2021

13. Thus both in Vithalnagar Co-operative Housing Society and Ashok
Saha this Court has taken a view that though Registrar can take note of
information disclosed in complaint by a non-member, such compliant
stands on a completely different pedestal and cannot be compared with
requisition by 1/5th members.

14) Similar view appears to have been taken by another Single
Judge of this Court (M.S. Sonak, J. as he then was) in Jeevan Niwas CHSL,
in which it is held in paras-11 to 14 as under :

11] The ratio decidendi of the decision of in the case of Ashok Saha
(supra) is that the Registrar is not bound to order inquiry under Section
83 (1) of the said Act, on the basis of complaint of a member or some
members, who do not constitute requisite percentage of members as
prescribed under Section 83(1) of the said Act. If however, the complaint
or application is made by the requisite percentage of members of the
society, the Registrar is obligated to order inquiry, subject of course, to
ful0llment of other parameters prescribed under Section 83(1) of the
said Act.

12] The decision in the case of Ashok Saha (supra) is however, not an
authority for the proposition that the Registrar lacks jurisdiction to
order an inquiry under Section 83 (1) of the said Act either suo motu or
on the basis of special report under third proviso to sub-section (5B) of
Section 81, merely because a complaint may have been made by some
member or members, who do not constitute the requisite percentage as
prescribed under Section 83(1) of the said Act. That would not be a
correct manner reading the decision in case of Ashok Saha (supra). It
must be noted upon the authority of decision of the House of Lords in
case of Quinn vs. Leatham that a judgment is authority for the
proposition, which it decides and not what can be deduced therefrom.
Further, as has been held in the case of Mittal Engineering Works (P)
Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, a judgment is not a
precedent on a proposition which it did not decide.

13] Therefore, mere circumstance that a complaint may have been made
by some member or members not constituting the requisite percentage
of members as prescribed under Section 83(1) of the said Act, does not
oust the jurisdiction of the Registrar to order inquiry under Section
83(1) of the said Act either suo motu or on the basis of special report
under the 3rd proviso to Section (5B) of Section 81. Of course, before
exercising suo motu powers, there has to be material on record
warranting exercise of such powers. Further, the Registrar has to

Page No.11 of 21
25 June 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-2980 OF 2021

genuinely apply his mind to such material, with a view to form an
opinion as to whether inquiry under Section 83 (1) of the said Act is
indeed warranted, in the facts and circumstances, so presented. If
Registrar, virtually abdicates his powers and discretion to the dictates
of some private complainant, then obviously, exercise of power by the
Registrar, will be unsustainable.

14] Reverting to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
material on record indicates that the respondent no.2 has basically
made the impugned order, on the basis of audit reports and the
responses furnished by the petitioner society with regard to prima-facie
objections raised in the audit reports. No doubt, the respondent no.2
has also looked into or adverted to the complaints made by respondent
no.4. This is quite clear from the terms of inquiry referred to in the
impugned order or in the corrigendum subsequently issued. However,
that by itself, is not suf0cient to conclude the respondent no.2 has
abdicated his discretion to the dictates of respondent no.4, at the stage
of making of impugned order. As noted earlier, the emphasis is basically
upon the objections and the irregularities pointed out in the audit
reports and the circumstance that the response of the petitioner society
to the objections raised in audit reports was prima-facie unsatisfactory.
In matters of judicial review of administrative action, adequacy of
material is not usually gone into. So also the defences which the
petitioner society might have on the merits, in the course of inquiry, are
not to be gone into at this stage. Suf0ce to record that the impugned
order cannot be said to have been made solely on the basis of complaint
made by respondent no.4, but the same can be said to be the result of
suo motu exercise of powers by the Registrar on the basis of material
before him, in the form of audit reports, prima-facie, unsatisfactory
response by the society coupled with certain irregularities referred to by
the respondent no.4. Accordingly, it is not possible to accept the
petitioner society's contention that the impugned order is ultra vires
Section 83(1) of the said Act.

15) The ratio of Single Judge judgment in Janhit Nagari
Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit is taken note of by the Division Bench in
Jayprakash Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Mrt. It is held by the
Division Bench in paras-13, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the judgment as under :

13. The petitioner is not justi0ed in relying upon the decision of the
Single Judge of this Court in case of Vithalnagar Co-operative Housing
Society (supra). The said decision based on its own facts and facts
before us are not the same. Even otherwise, this Court in a recent

Page No.12 of 21
25 June 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-2980 OF 2021

decision of Janhit Nagari Sahakari Path Santha Maryadit Vs. State of
Maharashtra has considered this decision and observed that a blanket
proposition, that an enquiry cannot be initiated at the behest of a
complaint lodged by a non-member was rejected. In our view, by
applying the ratio of the decision of this Court in case of Janhit Nagari
Sahakari Path Santha Maryadit (supra) to the facts of the present case,
the petitioner’s contention that the enquiry report at the behest of
respondent no.4 is illegal cannot be accepted.

15. It is important to note that under Section 83 of the MCS Act, power
is given to the Registrar for holding an inquiry regarding the
constitution, working and 0nancial conditions of a society. This is a
regulatory and supervisory power to ensure that the Society is
functioning in accordance with law. In our view, such a provision has to
be construed widely looking at the objects of the Act and the regulatory
and supervisory provisions enshrined in Section 83 of the MCS Act. The
said section per se does not mandate that no other person shall
complain and on the basis of which the Registrar cannot exercise his
powers under Section 83. In our view, if the information is received
from a third person then, the Registrar has to apply his mind to the said
information and thereafter if satis0ed, would decide whether to initiate
the enquiry. The phrase “suo-motu” has to be understood in that sense.
The Registrar acts essentially on his own accord and satisfaction albeit
the information being a motivator. If any other interpretation is given
to suo-motu under Sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the MCS Act then, it
would become meaningless and therefore, the only purposeful
interpretation would be to mean that on receipt of information from
third person, the Registrar if satis0ed, would take suo-motu action.

16. We may draw support for above from the decision of the Supreme
Court in case of K Pandurangan Vs. SSR Velusamy 4 wherein the
Supreme Court observed in connection with the provisions of the Code
of Criminal Procedure with regard to suo-motu power to revision as
under :-
“6. So far as the 0rst question as to the maintainability of the revision
at the instance of the complainant is concerned, we think the said
argument has only to be noted to be rejected. Under the provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court has suo motu power of
revision, if that be so, the question of the same being invoked at the
instance of an outsider would not make any difference because
ultimately it is the power of revision which is already vested with the
High Court statutorily that is being exercised by the High Court.
Therefore, whether the same is done by itself or at the instance of a
third party will not affect such power of the High Court. In this regard,
we may note the following judgment of this Court in the case of Nadir
Khan v. State (Delhi Admn).”
(emphasis supplied)

Page No.13 of 21
25 June 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-2980 OF 2021

17. In our view, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the
impugned enquiry report is at the behest of respondent no.4 who is not
a member and therefore the report prepared by respondent nos.2 & 3 is
illegal is required to be rejected.

18. The initiation of enquiry is not only based on complaint of
respondent no.4 but also other statutory authorities as evident from
communications dated 1st September 2021, 15th November 2021, 24th
November 2021 and 10th February 2022. Section 83(1) empowers the
Registrar to initiate inquiry suo-motu or on application of requisite
members. Therefore, “suo-motu” has to be read in contradistinction to
“members”. A Registrar may receive information from various sources
including a person who is a legal heir of deceased member which
compels him to take action.

16) The law thus appears to be fairly well settled that there is no
allergy to the Registrar acting either on a complaint of a third person or
on compliant of even a single member while exercising suo-moto powers
under Section 83 of the MCS Act. Such complaint can be one of the
source information received by the Registrar and provisions of Section 83
do not prohibit him from acting on such complaint while exercising suo-
moto powers. Therefore, I do not agree with the submissions of Mr.
Godbole that when a member desires to initiate proceedings under
Section 83 of the MCS Act, he must have backing of 1/5 th members and
unless complaint is signed by 1/5 th members, the Registrar cannot act on
such complaint. Registrar can take cognizance of complaint made even
by a single member, treat it as a source information and conduct his own
enquiry/investigation for arriving at a conclusion for exercise of suo-
moto powers under Section 83 of the MCS Act. Therefore, the impugned
order cannot be held to be illegal only on account of absence of
requisition/complaint by 1/5th members of the Society.

Page No.14 of 21
25 June 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-2980 OF 2021

17) The next issue for consideration is whether the power
exercised by the Deputy Registrar for initiation of enquiry can be treated
as suo-moto power within the meaning of Section 83 of the MCS Act. In
Janhit Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit though this Court has
recognised the principle of permissibility for Registrar to act on a
complaint (in absence of requisition from 1/5th members) for exercise of
suo-moto powers, ultimately this Court found that the Deputy Registrar
in that case had not applied independent mind and had appointed
Enquiry Of0cer by merely referring to the complaint. This is clear from
following 0ndings in the judgment:

14. Having considered the statutory framework and law laid down by
this Court, it is necessary to examine whether the decision of the
Deputy Registrar in directing holding of inquiry is warranted. The Order
passed by Deputy Registrar on 02 July 2019 reads thus :-

ी राजकुमार खरा

शेष लेखाप र क, -२ ( ाहक) सहकारी सं था, पुणे. षय- जन ह ना री
प सं थे #$द &ार अजाची चौकशी करणेबाब

संद+- मा. ,ज-हा उप नबंधक, सहकारी सं था, पुणेशहर, यांचेकडील जा.&. ,जउ नपुश /
नाप / जन ह प / .अ./१०४२९/२०१९, दनांक २३/०५/२०१९ रोजीचे अजासोब चा
ी. सुधीर आ-हाट इ र यांचा दनांक/०६/०६/२०१९ रोजीचे २ &ार अज.

उपरो< षयाकडे आपले ल ेधणे ये े, जन ह ना री सहकारी प सं था मया द ,
कॅ>प, पुणे या सं थे ील संचालक मंडळ, प सं थेचे २/- अ धकारी कमचारी यांनी
फस णुक के-यामुळे AयांBया र ुCहे दाखल करणेबाब स कज करणांची चौकशी
कDन सं थेकडू न घे असले-या बेकायदा ला+ाची चौकशी कDन Aयांचे संचालक पद रG
कDन AयांBया र फौजदारी कार ाई करणेबाब मा णी केलेली आहे.

Aयास अनुसDन सदर &ार अजाची चौकशी करणेकामी आपली नयु<ी करणे ये आहे.
सोब संदJ+य २ &ार अज जोडू न पाठ लेले आहे . री सदर &ार अजाची मुGे नहाय
सखोल चौकशी कDन आपले ंय पL अM+ ायासह चौकशी अह ाल दोन N या
कायालयास ८ द सां सादर करा ा.

Page No.15 of 21
25 June 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-2980 OF 2021

15. The decision dated 02 July 2019 does not indicate application of
independent mind by the Deputy Registrar. He has merely referred to
the 0ling of complaint by Shri. Sudhir Alhat and others on 06 June 2019
and has decided to appoint Special Auditor for holding inquiry.
Therefore, even if complaint dated 06 June 2019 is treated as source of
information received by the Deputy Registrar for taking suo moto
decision, there is nothing on record to indicate application of mind by
the Deputy Registrar to the allegations levelled in the complaint. The
Deputy Registrar has proceeded to direct holding of an inquiry in a
mechanical manner. He has placed the compliant on par with a
requisition by 1/5th of members for mandatorily directing inquiry. In
my view therefore, decision of the Deputy Registrar dated 02 July 2019
is totally erroneous.

18) In the present case, after the proceedings were remanded to
the Deputy Registrar, it appears that he has conducted hearing into the
complaint of Respondent No.3 dated 9 March 2018. The complaint 0nds
reference in Item No.2 in the beginning of the order. The Deputy
Registrar has adjudicated the complaint of Respondent No.3 by
conducting hearings and by recording submissions of Respondent No.3
and of the Society. After recording the rival submissions, the Deputy
Registrar has recorded following 0ndings:

अM+ ायः-

&ारदार यांनी दाखल केलेली &ार अज Aयासोब जोडलेली का दपQे
सं थेने दाखल केलेले लेखी >हणणे पा हले . &ारदार यांनी सं थे ील Rय थापक
स म ीBया कामकाजाबाब सं थे ील Rय थापक स म ीने ैय <क ाथाक र ा
कायदया ील र ूदीचे उTंघन क#न सं थेBया नधीचा बेकायदेशीरपणे ापर केलेला आहे .
Aयाच माणे सं थे ील Rय थापक सामाCय संद+ा यांBया ना े ाईक, मQमंडळी
ह च क यांBया फमना (सं थाना) कामे दे असून सं थेBया नधीचा ैर ापर करी आहे
सं थेची आJथक नुकसान होUयाची दाट शVय ा नमाण झालेली आहे . अशा कारची &ार
केलेली असून &ारदार यांनी या कायालयाचे महाराLX सहकारी सं था अ ध नयम १९६० चे
कलम ८३ अC ये काय ाही करUयास नं ी केलेली आहे.

Aयाअनुषं ाने सं थेचे लेखी >हणणे सादर केले असून Aयांनी महाराLX सहकारी सं था
अ ध नयम १९६० चे कलम ८३ मधील र ूदी नुसार नबंधक कायालयास सं थे ील एकूण
स+ासदांपैकी १/३ स+ासदाने अज के-यास सं थेची चौकशी करUयाक र ा ा धकृ
अ धकारी यांची नेमणूक कर ा ये े असे नमूद केलेले आहे. Aयाच माणे आ ेप घे लेला आहे
की, नबंधकारा एकाच स+ासदाBया &ारीBया अनुषं ाने महाराLX सहकारी सं था अ ध नयम

Page No.16 of 21
25 June 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-2980 OF 2021

१९६० चे कलम ८३ अC ये चौकशी अ धकारी नेम ा ये नाही. सदर मुदयांBया अनुषं ाने
सं थेने AयांBया >हणUयासोब मा. उ[ Cयायालया ील या चका &. ५४४/२०१९ अशोक
सहा इ र #$द महाराLX शासन इ र या दाRयाम$ये नणयाचा आधार घे लेला आहे .
Aयामुळे &ारदार यांचा अज नकाली काढUयका र ा नं ी केलेली आहे.

]ू थ ी अशी की, &ारदार यांनी या कायालयाम$ये केले-या &ारीBया
अनुषं ाने लेखी खुलासा ^डी यु<ी ाद सेच सं थेने लेखी खुलासा ^डी यु<ी ाद केला
असून Aयाम$ये पL नदशनास ये े की, &ारदार यांनी AयांBया &ारीमधील मुदयांBया
अनुषं ाने सं थे ील कार+ाराची चौकशी करUयाक र ा नं ी केली असली री महाराLX
सहकारी सं था अ ध नयम १९६० चे कलम ८३ अC ये खालील माणे पL र ूद आहे.

नबंधकास ःहून _क ा सं थेBया १/५ सद यांनी केले-या अजा #न
_क ा कलम ८१ Bया पोटकलम ५ (ब) Bया स-य परं ूकाC ये " शेष
अह ालाBया आधारे" Bया _क ा याबाब अ धकारी यांनी सं थेBया
ैरRय हाराबाब चा शेष अह ाल ा` झा-या र अह ालाBया अनुषं ाने महाराLX
सहकारी सं था अ ध नयम १९६० चे कलम ८३ अC ये चौकशी अ धकारी नेम ा
ये ा.

&ारदार यांनी या कायालयाBया नदशनास आणून दले आहे की, सं थेBया
Rय थापक स म ीने बेकायदेशीर रAया सं थेBया ैर ापर क#न रaम # ८०,०००/- हाऊस
कपN करी ा अ र< खच अदा केलेला आहे. सेच सं थेBया नधी ून काही aम
रaमा Rय थापक स म ी सद यांम$ये ाटप केले-या आहे. सं थेBया Rय थापक स म ीने
स साधारण स+ेची पू पर ान ी मोcा रaमा काढू न Aयाचा ापर बेकायदेशीर रAया
केलेला आहे. सेच काही एन बी ओ यांना आJथक मद केलेली आहे सं थेचे Rय थापकांनी
सं थेBया नधी ून बेकायदेशीर रaमा काढू न Aयाबाब चे पुरा े नL केलेले आहे . सं थेम$य
हाऊस कपN क र ा ३० यांBया नयुVया क#न सं थेBया नधी ून Aय ास ५६ कमचा-
यांचे े न सं थेकडू न घेUया आलेले आहे . Aया माणे सं थेने सादर क#न लेखापरी ण
अह ालाम$ये काही शेरे नमूद केलेले आहे .

सं थेBया Rय थापक स म ीने सं थेBया नधीचा ापर हा उप धी ील
र ूदीनुसार अथ ा स साधारण स+ेBया पू पर ान ी केलेला आहे _क ा नाही सेच
सं थेBया रचना चे कामकाज आMण ची आJथक ] थ ी याबाब चौकशी अC ये
पड ाळणी करणे Aय आहे असे या कायालयाचे म झालेले आहे . >हणून खालील माणे
आदेश क र आहे.

19) Though, it may appear as if the Deputy Registrar has
recorded his own independent 0ndings after consideration of
submissions made by rival parties, factually the position is otherwise.
Even under the heading 'Opinion', the Deputy Registrar has again
reproduced or summarized the nature of complaint of Respondent No.3
and has thereafter quoted provisions of Section 83 of the MCS Act.
Though there are certain observations with regard to payment of excess

Page No.17 of 21
25 June 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-2980 OF 2021

amount of Rs.80,000/- for housekeeping, distribution of amounts
amongst members of managing committee, withdrawal of large amounts
etc, paying amounts to NGO, destruction of evidence etc., these are not
0ndings or prima-facie opinion of the Deputy Registrar. These
observations which begin with the expression ' &ारदार यांनी या कायालयाBया
नदशनास आणून दले आहे की...' (Complainant has brought to the notice of this

of2ce that...)

20) Thus, the Deputy Registrar has mainly reproduced the
contents of complaint of Respondent No.3. There appears to be no
recording of independent opinion by the Deputy Registrar. More
importantly, the impugned order does not indicate consideration of any
independent material by the Deputy Registrar while making the order.
He has directed conduct of enquiry solely on the basis of contents of
complaint of Respondent No.3. There is thus no independent application
of mind by the Divisional Registrar as was the case in Janhit Nagari
Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit.

21) Also of relevance is the fact that instead of exercising suo-
moto powers under Section 83 by undertaking independent assessment,
the Registrar has essentially adjudicated the complaint of Respondent
No.3. The Deputy Registrar does not possess adjudicative power under
Section 83 to decide the complaint made by a member. The statutory
scheme is such that if a requisition is made by 1/5 th members, the Deputy
Registrar has no option but to order inquiry on account of use of the
word 'shall'. However, when members less than 1/5th or any outsider or a

Page No.18 of 21
25 June 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-2980 OF 2021

third person makes a complaint about functioning of the Society, though
the Deputy Registrar is not prevented from taking cognizance of such
complaint for exercise of suo-moto power, he must make independent
assessment of the matter and then proceed to order conduct of enquiry.
Consideration of complaint as a source information for exercise of suo-
moto power is a concept distinct and different from the concept of
adjudicating the complaint and making a decision thereon. Apart from
the fact that the order dated 2 March 2019 shows exercise of adjudicatory
power by the Deputy Registrar, while addressing copy of the order to
Respondent No.3, the Divisional Registrar has made following remark :

३. डॉ. एल.बी. ारी,
ची/१८, बी४०२, ुलशन ोकूळधाम,
ोरे ां पू मुब
ं ई- ६३

२ /- &ार अजा ील मुfांBया अनुषं ाने उ च काय ाही करUया आलेली अस-यामुळे
आपला &ार अज नकाली काढUया ये आहे.

22) Thus, copy of the order is also provided to the complainant
after ‘adjudication’ of his complaint. Use of the words ' &ार अज नकाली
काढUया ये आहे' leaves no manner of doubt that the Deputy Registrar has
rendered ' नकाल' (decision) on the complaint. Section 83 of the MCS Act
does not confer adjudicatory powers on the Deputy Registrar. The
principle recognised by this Court in Janhit Nagari Sahakari Pat Sansth
Maryadit, Pune, Jeevan Niwas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd and
Jayprakash Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Mrt about permissibility
for Deputy Registrar to take cognizance of complaint cannot be
overstretched to mean that Registrar can ‘adjudicate’ such complaint and
render a 'decision' thereon.

Page No.19 of 21
25 June 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-2980 OF 2021

23) In view of the above discussion, in my view, the Deputy
Registrar has egregiously erred in adjudicating the complaint of
Respondent No.3 in purported exercise of powers under Section 83 of the
MCS Act. The impugned order dated 2 March 2019 does not indicate that
the Deputy Registrar has made any independent assessment of records
made available before him. He has merely reproduced contents of
complaint of Respondent No.3 and has proceeded to order enquiry into
the affairs of the Society. The order of the Deputy Registrar is thus
contrary to the statutory scheme of Section 83 of the MCS Act.

24) There is yet another reason why the order dated 2 March
2019 deserves to be set aside. The Deputy Registrar had earlier ordered
enquiry into the affairs of the Society in exercise of powers under Section
83 of the Act by passing order dated 13 April 2018. That order was
challenged by the Society before the Divisional Joint Registrar
complaining that enquiry was erroneously ordered acting solely on the
basis of complaint of Respondent No.3. The Divisional Joint Registrar
accepted the objection of the Society and had speci0cally held that the
Deputy Registrar had not initiated enquiry under Section 83 suo-moto.
Following 0ndings recorded by the Divisional Joint Registrar in the order
dated 14 August 2018 are relevant:

Therefore it seems that the Respondent-Deputy Registrar has not
initiated enquiry u/s. 83 on suo-moto or on the application of 1/5th
members of the Society. Therefore the action initiated by the
Respondent-Deputy Registrar against the provisions of Section 83'.

25) Thus, the Divisional Joint Registrar, in previous round of
proceedings, had speci0cally recorded a 0nding that ordering enquiry on

Page No.20 of 21
25 June 2026
Neeta Sawant WP-2980 OF 2021

the basis of complaint of Respondent No.3 was not suo-moto exercise of
power by the Deputy Registrar. Though not required, the Divisional Joint
Registrar had erroneously remanded the proceedings before the Deputy
Registrar. Since Petitioner-Society did not question correctness of order
of remand, it is not necessary to delve deeper into that aspect. Suf0ce, it
to observe that in the remanded proceedings, the Deputy Registrar once
again committed the same folly and acted squarely on the basis of
complaint of Respondent No.3 for ordering enquiry under Section 83.

26) Considering the overall conspectus of the case, in my view,
the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar on 2 March 2019 and by the
Divisional Joint Registrar on 9 March 2020 are indefensible and liable to
be set aside. The petition succeeds partly, and I proceed to pass the
following order :

(i) Order dated 9 March 2020 passed by the Divisional Joint
Registrar dismissing the Revision of the Petitioner is set
aside.
(ii) The Revision is allowed and consequently, Order dated 2
March 2019 passed by the Deputy Registrar under Section
83 of the MCS Act is set aside.

27) The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. Rule is
made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. The Interim
Application, if any, is also disposed of.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Digitally
signed by
NEETA
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
Page No.21 of 21
2026.06.25
17:47:43
+0530 25 June 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…