Bombay High Court
NUTAN SAYALI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The order of deregistration dated 18 March 2014 is set aside as there is no actionable misrepresentation within the meaning of Section 21A of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960.
Summary
The petitioner, a cooperative housing society formed in 1995 for plots 2 and 3, challenged the order dated 18 March 2014 by the Minister of Cooperation which deregistered the society under Section 21A of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960. The deregistration was based on an alleged misrepresentation that plot 2 was omitted from the registration proposal, a claim raised by Respondent No. 4 – a co‑promoter and former office‑bearer of the society – who had filed the application for deregistration after 19 years. The Divisional Joint Registrar had rejected the application in 2012, finding no misrepresentation. The High Court held that the Minister mis‑used his appellate powers, failed to apply the statutory scheme of Section 21A, and erred in treating a mere clerical omission as a material misrepresentation. Citing precedents, the Court observed that deregistration under Section 21A is a drastic remedy reserved for genuine fraud that goes to the root of registration, which was absent here. Consequently, the order of deregistration was set aside and exemplary costs were imposed on Respondent No. 4.
Issues considered
- Whether the omission of plot 2 in the registration proposal constitutes misrepresentation within the meaning of Section 21A of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960 warranting deregistration.
- Whether the Minister, as appellate authority, can order deregistration in an appeal against the Registrar’s decision and whether the correct statutory procedure was followed.
- Whether the powers under Section 21A may be exercised after a lapse of 19 years in the absence of a clear case of fraud.
- Whether exemplary costs should be awarded against the respondent who sought deregistration.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 152, 21, 21A, 6
Subjects
- cooperative housing society
- deregistration
- misrepresentation
- Section 21A
- appellate jurisdiction
- Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act
- exemplary costs
- procedural irregularity
Judgment
026:BHC-AS:1
Megha 28_wp_9824_2016 wi IA_1521_20_fc.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9824 OF 2016
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1521 OF 2020
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.9824 OF 2016
Nutan Sayali Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd. ...Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Mr. Satyapal Thosar with Mr. Hrushikesh Durne for the Petitioner.
Mr. Kishor Patil with Mr. R.M. Haridas for Respondent No.4.
Mr. P.G. Sawant, AGP for Respondent-State.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 6 OCTOBER 2026.
Oral Judgment:
1) By this Petition, the Petitioner-Society has challenged the Order
dated 18 March 2014 passed by the Hon’ble Minister-Cooperation,
allowing Appeal No.96 of 2013 filed by Respondent No.4 and directing
de-registration of the Petitioner-Society under Section 21A of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (the MCS Act) by setting
Page No.1 of 15
6 October 2026
Megha 28_wp_9824_2016 wi IA_1521_20_fc.odt
aside the Order dated 21 November 2012 passed by the Divisional Joint
Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik (Divisional Joint Registrar).
2) Petitioner is a cooperative housing society formed in respect of
the structures constructed on Plot Nos. 2 and 3. It is formed and
registered on 17 November 1995 on the basis of the proposal signed and
submitted by the purchasers of units constructed on both the plots.
Respondent No. 4 himself was a signatory to the proposal. Respondent
No. 4 also functioned as the office bearer of the society. However,
Respondent No. 4 applied for deregistration of the society by filing
application under Section 21A of the MCS Act on 13 November 1995
alleging that the society was intended to be formed only in respect of
the structures constructed on Plot No. 3 and that therefore there was
misrepresentation. The Divisional Joint Registrar rejected the
application of Respondent No. 4 by Order dated 21 November 2012. The
Respondent No. 4 filed appeal before the Hon’ble Minister, who has
allowed the Appeal by impugned Order dated 18 March 2014 and has
directed deregistration of the society. Aggrieved by the Order dated 18
March 2014, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition.
3) I have heard Mr. Thosar, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, Mr. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4
and Mr. Sawant, the learned AGP appearing for the Respondent-State. I
have considered the submissions canvassed by them.
4) It must be observed at the very outset that Hon’ble Minister has
exercised the appellate powers vested in him with material irregularity
Page No.2 of 15
6 October 2026
Megha 28_wp_9824_2016 wi IA_1521_20_fc.odt
while passing the impugned order dated 18 March 2014. Respondent
No.4 had sought de-registration of a co-operative housing society
formed by unit purchasers, which was registered on 17 November 1995,
after 11 long years. By the time, the Hon’ble Minister decided to direct
de-registration, a period of 19 long years had elapsed. Also, de-
registration was sought by someone, who was a co-promoter and had
signed the proposal for registration of the Society. Ignoring this
position, the Hon’ble Minister has directed de-registration of the
Petitioner-Society in a causal manner without recording any cogent
reasons. The terse reasoning of the Hon’ble Minister is as under:
माझ्या समोर सादर झालेली कागदपत्रे तसेच लेखो व तोंडी म्हणणे विचारात घेता असे
दिसून येते कि, प्रतिवादी क्र. ३ या संस्थेच्या नोंदणी वेळी सादर केलेल्या योजनेत प्लॉट
क्र. २ चा उल्लेख नाही. शिवाय संस्थेची नोंदणी करण्यासाठी प्लॉट क्र. २ च्या मालकांची
पूर्व परवानगी घेतलेली आहे मात्र संस्था नोंदणीच्या ठरावात प्लॉट क्र. ३ चा उल्लेख आहे.
तसेच ए व बी फॉर्म / स्टेटमेंटवर दोन्ही प्लॉटचा उल्लेख आढळतो अशा रितीने -
नोंदणीच्या वेळी सादर केलेली माहिती परस्पर विसंगत आहे. प्रतिवादी क्र. ३ यांनी सुध्दा
अनवधानाने प्लॉट क्र. २ चा उल्लेख राहून गेल्याचे मान्य केलेले आहे, म्हणजेच
अर्जदारांच्या प्रतिपादनास प्रतिवादी क्र. ३ यांची एक प्रकारे सहमती आहे असे निदर्शनास
आलेले आहे. त्यामुळे संस्था ज्या भुखड ं ावर नोंदविलेली आहे त्या भुखंडाबाबत नेमकी
माहिती सादर केलेली नाही, दिशाभुल करणारी माहिती सादर केलेली आहे म्हणून
अर्जदारांचा युक्तीवाद मान्य करण्यात येत आहे व खालीलप्रमाणे आदेश पारित करण्यात
येत आहेत.
5) Thus, a drastic action of de-registration of Petitioner-Society is
ordered by Hon’ble Minister by recording above cryptic findings. Merely
because plot No.2 was not reflected in the registration proposal, he has
recorded a finding that there is misrepresentation by the Applicants
while seeking registration of the Society. While recording the above
findings, the Hon’ble Minister has ignored the position that Respondent
No.4 himself is a signatory to the registration proposal. He has also
ignored the fact that several unit purchasers of structures located on
Page No.3 of 15
6 October 2026
Megha 28_wp_9824_2016 wi IA_1521_20_fc.odt
plot No.2 had also joined in the proposal for formation of the
Petitioner-Society. The case does not involve opposition by unit
purchasers of plot No.2 for formation of a common society in respect of
plot Nos.2 and 3. On the other hand, unit occupiers on plot No.2 were
very much willing to form a common society alongwith unit purchasers
on plot No.3. Ignoring all these, the Hon’ble Minister has casually
passed the impugned order dated 18 March 2014.
6) The appellate powers are vested in the State Government, which
are to be exercised by the Hon’ble Minister, only for the purpose of
correcting gross errors in the orders passed by the subordinate
authorities. The appellate authority needs to consider the findings
recorded by the subordinate authority and then examine whether the
decision and findings in the order appealed against are correct or
otherwise. An appellate authority acting in a quasi-judicial capacity
must apply an objective standard rather than subjective satisfaction.
7) In the present case, the Hon’ble Minister has not even
appreciated the scheme under the MCS Act for ordering de-registration
of the Society. Without appreciating the statutory scheme, the Hon’ble
Minister has exercised appellate powers as if he was deciding the appeal
against an order of registration of the Society. The Hon’ble Minister
ought to have been alive to the position that what he was deciding is an
appeal against order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar rejecting
the proposal of Respondent No.4 for de-registration of the Society.
8) Deciding the appeal against registration order and ordering de-
registration of already registered society under Section 21A of the MCS
Page No.4 of 15
6 October 2026
Megha 28_wp_9824_2016 wi IA_1521_20_fc.odt
Act are two different and distinct concepts. Parameters, which may
apply for deciding appeal under Section 152 of the MCS Act against an
order of registration of the Society do not apply to the proceedings filed
under Section 21A of the MCS Act, which is a drastic provision under
which de-registration of an already registered society can be directed at
any point of time provided any four enumerated circumstances under
Section 21A are demonstrated. In the present case, Hon’ble Minister
has unfortunately not appreciated the manner in which powers under
Section 21A of the MCS Act are to be exercised. The appellate authority
has causally allowed the appeal and has directed de-registration of a
housing society formed 19 years ago in a most cavalier manner. A mere
discrepancy in not mentioning Plot No. 2 in the registration proposal is
treated as misrepresentation by the applicants by the appellate
authority, ignoring the position that the appellant before him was one
of the applicants in the proposal. The manner in which the appellate
powers are exercised by the Hon’ble Minister in the present case is
disquieting. This Court expresses its disapproval.
9) Coming to the merits of order dated 18 March 2014, it is seen that
the Divisional Joint Registrar had rejected the application filed by
Respondent No.4 under Section 21A of the MCS Act by order dated 21
November 2012 recording a finding that there was no misrepresentation
by the Applicants at the time of registration of the Society. As observed
above, the Hon’ble Minister has recorded a singular reason of non-
reflection of plot No.2 in the registration application for directing de-
registration of the Society.
Page No.5 of 15
6 October 2026
Megha 28_wp_9824_2016 wi IA_1521_20_fc.odt
10) Mr. Patil has taken me through Statement “B” of the application
for registration of the Society and in para 2(b) thereof the location of
the land was indicated as only plot No.3. According to Mr. Patil, there
was conscious exclusion of plot No.2 at the time of submitting
application for registration. However, if the list of promoters, who have
signed the proposal, is perused, the same appears to have been signed
by 14 promoters, which includes the name of Respondent No.4 at Serial
No.14. There is no doubt to the position that several unit occupiers of
structures located on plot No.2 have also signed the proposal alongwith
Respondent No.4. Thus, Respondent No.4 jointly submitted a proposal
for registration of a common society in respect of the structures
constructed on plot Nos.2 and 3. After 19 long years, Respondent No.4
turned around and questioned validity of registration on the ground
that the Society was meant to be registered only in respect of structures
located on plot No.3 and unit purchasers of structures on plot no.2 are
erroneously included in the registration proposal. While contending so,
Respondent No.4 conveniently suppressed the fact that he himself was
a co-signatory alongwith 13 other promoters while submitting the
application for registration of the Society. He never had any qualms
about unit purchasers of plot no.2 joining together in signing common
application for registration of the Society in 1995. After 19 long years he
took a volte face and questioned registration of a common society in
respect of plot Nos.2 and 3.
11) In my view, mere non-reflection of plot No.2 in para 2(b) of the
Statement “B” to registration proposal did not mean that there was any
misrepresentation on the part of the Applicants at the time of
Page No.6 of 15
6 October 2026
Megha 28_wp_9824_2016 wi IA_1521_20_fc.odt
registration of the Society. By now, law is sufficiently settled about the
manner in which powers under Section 21A of the MCS Act are to be
exercised by the Registrar. In Auram Avenue Co-op Housing Society Ltd.
and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1 a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court has held that mere error in registration of the society is not a
ground for exercising drastic power of de-registration under Section
21A of the MCS Act. It is held that mere minor irregularities in the
process of registration does not amount to deliberate misrepresentation
and suppression of facts within Section 21A of the MCS Act. This Court
held in paragraphs 20 and 22 of the judgment as under:
20. In the present case, the invocation of Section 21A hinges upon
the allegation that the society was registered in contravention of
Section 6 of the MCS Act, which prescribes the minimum number of
members required for a society’s formation. However, a perusal of
the record reveals that there is no categorical finding that the
society was established with an intent to mislead or commit fraud.
The registration of a cooperative society is a quasi judicial process
act, and minor irregularities in the process—unless they amount to
deliberate misrepresentation or suppression of facts—cannot justify
the extreme recourse of cancellation. Mere procedural lapses do not
warrant drastic statutory action unless they are of such nature as to
affect the very foundation of the registration process.
xxx
22. In view of the foregoing, the grounds on which the authorities
have proceeded, even if accepted as correct, at best indicate that the
registration of the society was erroneous but not fraudulent.
Consequently, the impugned order of deregistration appears to be
legally unsustainable, inasmuch as the appropriate course of action
would have been to subject the registration to appellate scrutiny
rather than invoking the drastic measure of cancellation under
Section 21A. It follows that the order passed by the authorities under
the Act is liable to be set aside, and the matter ought to be relegated
to the appellate forum for proper adjudication in accordance with
law.
1 Writ Petition No.14644 of 2023 decided on 19 March 2025
Page No.7 of 15
6 October 2026
Megha 28_wp_9824_2016 wi IA_1521_20_fc.odt
12) In Ramchandra M. and Another V/s. State of Maharashtra and
Ors.2 this Court has held that allegation of misrepresentation must go
to the root of the matter and must be of such a nature that if the same
was not made, registration of a society itself would not have been
possible. This Court held in paragraphs 17, 18 and 21 as under:
17. ...If the society was otherwise properly formed, members had
purchased flats, possession was given, and basic requirements were
satisfied, then later disputes about documents cannot automatically
make the registration illegal. Therefore, the authority was required to
see only whether there was any fraud at the time of registration, and
not to examine the entire title history like a civil court.
18. This understanding becomes more clear when one looks at the
principle laid down in the case of Rameshwar Cooperative Housing
Society Limited. In that case, it is clearly stated that the Registrar
must first find a real and clear case of misrepresentation. Not every
mistake or omission will do. The misrepresentation must be of such a
nature that without that false statement, the society would not have
been registered at all. In other words, the falsehood must go to the
root. It must be the very reason why registration was granted.
xxx
21. If these events are put in proper sequence, it becomes clear that
the society was formed after real transactions had already taken place.
The building was standing. People had purchased flats. They had
entered into registered agreements. They were in possession. Only
thereafter they came together to form a society. This shows that the
society has its roots in actual possession and actual enjoyment of
property by members. It is not a case where a society was floated first
and then used as a device. Because of this, it becomes difficult to
accept that the registration itself was obtained by playing fraud on
the authority. Fraud, in such matters, must go to the beginning. Here
the beginning itself is supported by completed construction,
occupation certificate, and possession of members. Therefore, the
factual background does not support the case of de-registration.
2 Writ Petition No.10286 of 2014 decided on 8 April 2026
Page No.8 of 15
6 October 2026
Megha 28_wp_9824_2016 wi IA_1521_20_fc.odt
In the present case, even if Plot No. 2 was to be mentioned in the
registration proposal, the society was still capable of being registered.
Thus, non-reflection of plot No. 2 is not deliberate and was not aimed at
securing registration by misrepresentation. Thus, the omission in not
mentioning Plot No. 2 in the registration proposal does not go to the
root of the matter and does not amount to misrepresentation within the
meaning of Section 21A of the MCS Act.
13) More recently, in Capt. Rajeev Kumar and Ors V/s. The State of
Maharashtra and Ors.3 this Court has held that the remedy under
Section 21A of the MCS Act is not intended to be exercised in a routine
or casual manner and that mere discrepancies in the registration
process can never be a ground for taking a drastic step of de-
registration of the society, particularly after a passage of substantial
time. This Court further held that mere differences of opinion between
the members with regard to the manner of conducting of affairs of a co-
operative housing society cannot be a ground for ordering de-
registration of the Society. By referring to the judgments in Elite
Diagnostic Center Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Krishna Kunj Co-op. Housing Society
Ltd. and Ors. 4, Madhur Naina Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. 5 and Cosmopolitan III Co-operative
Housing Society Limited Vs. Hon’ble Minister Cooperation, Marketing
Govt. of Maharashtra and Ors. 6 this Court has held in paragraphs 10 to
14 of the judgment as under:
3 Writ Petition No.3162 of 2021 decided on 28 September 2026
4 2026 BHC-AS:27059
5 Writ Petition No.850 of 2026 decided on 22 July 2026
6 (2025) 2 High Court Cases (Bom) 363
Page No.9 of 15
6 October 2026
Megha 28_wp_9824_2016 wi IA_1521_20_fc.odt
10) Thus, as opposed to the normal remedy of preferring an appeal
against registration of the society under Section 152 of the MCS
Act, the remedy under Section 21A of the Act is not intended to be
exercised in a routine or casual manner. Mere discrepancies in the
registration process can never be a ground for taking the extreme
measure of de-registration of a society, particularly after passage of
substantial time. In Elite Diagnostic Center Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Krishna
Kunj
Co-op. Housing Society Ltd and Ors, this Court has held in
paragraph 25 of the judgment as under:
25) I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the
Hon'ble Minister. The remit of enquiry under Section 21A of
the MCS Act is in extremely narrow compass. As observed
above, there is a separate remedy of filing Appeal against
registration of the society under Section 152 of the Act,
which is a much broader remedy. The power of
deregistration is to be exercised in rare circumstances where
one out of the four enumerated circumstances under Section
21A is made out. The first circumstance of
‘misrepresentation’ is not to be misunderstood as giving
wide or unbridled power on the Registrar of recalling the
decision of registration. While exercising the power under
Section 21A, the Joint Registrar cannot sit in appeal over the
decision of the Assistant Registrar. It is only in a rare case
where registration of the society is based on
misrepresentation by the Applicants that the power of de-
registration can be exercised. The misrepresentation must
be of such nature and degree that if not made, the society
would not have been registered. Mere giving of inaccurate or
incomplete information cannot be a misrepresentation
capable of de-registering the society. The misrepresentation
must be noticed in the information given while seeking
registration. The information on the basis of which
registration is obtained must be demonstrated as false or the
documents submitted must be demonstrated as forged or
fabricated. Misrepresentation cannot be assumed on the
basis of events occurring subsequent to the registration of
the society.
(emphasis added)
11) This Court has repeatedly held that mere differences between
the society members about the manner in which affairs of the
society are conducted can never be a ground for staking at the very
root of existence of the society or for seeking registration of a new
society. While dealing with the issue of bifurcation of the society, in
Page No.10 of 15
6 October 2026
Megha 28_wp_9824_2016 wi IA_1521_20_fc.odt
Madhur Naina Co-operative Housing Society Limited V/s. State of
Maharashtra and Ors., this Court has held that mere existence of
disputes between members relating to redevelopment process
cannot be a reason for invoking Section 18 of the MCS Act. In
Cosmopolitan III Co-operative Housing Society Limited V/s.
Hon’ble Minister Cooperation, Marketing Govt. of Maharashtra and
Ors., this Court has held that mere existence of disputes between
the society members, allegations of misappropriation, non-holding
of elections, etc. are all capable of being redressed by adopting
remedies under the provisions of the MCS Act and that bifurcation
of the Society is not the remedy. This Court has held in paragraphs
21 and 22 of the judgment as under:
22. The allegation of misappropriation of Society funds,
non- holding of elections, irregular manner in passing of
resolutions, maintenance, etc. are all issues which are
capable of being redressed by adopting the necessary
remedy under the provisions of MCS Act. The enquiry
which ought to have been conducted is whether the
disputes have the effect of disrupting the effective
management of Society. In addition, it was also necessary
to consider whether the legislative intent of effective
management can be achieved in the facts of present case
where there is practical impossibility of division of land in
proportion to the built-up area.
(emphasis added)
12) The MCS Act provides for the remedies to adjudicate the
disputes relating to the manner of passing of resolutions, taking of
decisions by the managing committee, non-following of the
provisions of Act/Rules/Bye-laws, etc. The aggrieved members need
to exercise those remedies and cannot adopt self-destructive
approach by seeking de-registration of the very society of which
they are members. If the approach adopted by the Respondent Nos.
5 to 11 is permitted, a defaulter member who does not desire to pay
society dues would apply for documents relating to registration of
the society and if any discrepancy is noticed, such member would
seek de-registration of the society with the objective of avoiding
payment of maintenance dues. Thus instead of exercising the
remedies provided for in the Act to dispute the maintenance dues,
such defaulter member would seek to strike at the very root of
formation of the society and get the society de- registered on the
ground of misrepresentation for achieving the oblique motive of
non-payment of the maintenance dues.
13) In my view therefore, exercise of jurisdiction by the Registrar
under Section 21A in the facts of the present case was clearly
Page No.11 of 15
6 October 2026
Megha 28_wp_9824_2016 wi IA_1521_20_fc.odt
unwarranted. The Registrar ought to have appreciated that
Respondent Nos. 5 to 11 were fighting a battle against the
managing committee of the society in respect of the manner in
which decisions were being taken and implemented. Several
proceedings were undertaken by Respondent Nos. 5 to 11 against
the managing committee. In such circumstances, when the
Registrar was presented with application under Section 21A of the
MCS Act, the Registrar ought to have rejected such application at
the threshold by directing the complainants to remedies under the
Act in respect of their grievance with regard to management of
affairs of the society. Respondent Nos. 5 to 11 themselves admit
that they came across documents relating to registration of society
during the course of prosecution of various other remedies with
regard to their challenges to the decisions taken by the managing
committee. The Registrar ought to have appreciated this position
and ought not to have exercised powers under Section 21A of the
MCS Act in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Unfortunately, the Hon’ble Minister has also not appreciated this
position and has proceeded to approve the extreme measure of de-
registration of the society by holding that there were discrepancies
in the documents presented at the time of registration of the
society.
14) Both the Registrar as well as the Hon’ble Minister ought to have
been alive to the situation that de-registration of the society at this
point of time would result in utter chaos with regard to
management of the building of the society. Mere existence of
disputes and differences between members of the society can never
be a ground for taking extreme measure of de-registration of the
society. It appears that there are 604 units in the building and as
opposed to 604 members, complaints are being made by only about
6 to 7 members who sought de-registration of the society. Mr.
Walawalkar claims that Respondent Nos. 5 to 11 are backed by 130
members. Assuming this to be true, even those 130 minority
members, who are opposed to the manner of functioning of the
managing committee, cannot seek to strike at the very root of
formation of the society and their differences with the majority
cannot be a ground for exercising extreme powers under Section
21A of the MCS Act.
14) In my view, no case of actionable misrepresentation within the
meaning of Section 21A of the MCS Act is made out for directing
extreme measure of de-registration of the Society. Non-reflection of
plot no.2 in paragraph 2(b) of the application for registration was a
Page No.12 of 15
6 October 2026
Megha 28_wp_9824_2016 wi IA_1521_20_fc.odt
mere inadvertence in view of the fact that unit occupiers of structure
constructed on plot No.2 had joined the proposal for registration of the
Society. There is no misrepresentation, which really goes to the root of
the matter or renders the registration itself invalid.
15) Before parting, the conduct of Respondent No.4 must be
observed. Respondent No.4 was not only a signatory in the capacity as a
co-promoter for registration of the Society, but he also apparently held
the position as chairman of the society. He pressed for de-registration
of the society before the appellate authority after 19 long years. If there
was any misrepresentation, the same was by Respondent No.4, who
himself had signed the proposal for registration of the society
mentioning only Plot No. 3 in the proposal. He attempted to take
benefit of his own wrong and has ensured that a duly formed registered
co-operative housing society is de-registered after a period of 19 long
years. In my view, therefore, while allowing the present Petition,
exemplary costs are required to be imposed on Respondent No.4. This is
necessary so as to nip in the bud a tendency on the part of the members
of co-operative housing societies, who have grievance against the
Managing Committee or against functioning of the society and who
initiate the proceedings under 21A of the MCS Act for de-registration of
the very same society of which they are members. If members are
allowed to have the society deregistered for settlement of their private
grievances, the defaulting members would misuse the provisions of
Section 21A of the Act and after securing the copies of documents
submitted for registration, seek deregistration of the society for
avoiding to pay the maintenance charges.
Page No.13 of 15
6 October 2026
Megha 28_wp_9824_2016 wi IA_1521_20_fc.odt
16) The Registrar as well as the State Government must therefore be
mindful of the nature of powers that can to be exercised under Section
21 of the MCS Act. This Court has repeatedly come across cases where
jurisdiction under Section 21A of the MCS Act is routinely and casually
exercised by the Registrars and by the State Government, which is not
the legislative objective. It is unfortunate that the Registrar and the
State Government ignore the fundamental difference between exercise
of power of appeal under Section 152 of the MCS Act against order of
registration of society and jurisdiction to be exercised under Section
21A of the MCS Act for de-registration of the Society, which has already
been formed for the purpose of collective management of property of
the society. Time has come to give a stern message so as to ensure that
the drastic powers under Section 21A of the MCS Act are not casually
and routinely exercised, as has been done in the present case.
17) As observed above, the facts and circumstances of the case
warrants imposition of exemplary costs on Respondent No.4. However,
Mr. Patil submits that Respondent No.4 is 74 years old and is bed
ridden. Considering this position, it would be appropriate to impose
moderate costs of Rs. 15,000 on Respondent No. 4.
18) In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following
order:
(i) Impugned order dated 18 March 2014 passed by the
Hon’ble Minister Co-operation in Appeal No.96 of 2013
is set aside.
Page No.14 of 15
6 October 2026
Megha 28_wp_9824_2016 wi IA_1521_20_fc.odt
(ii) Respondent No.4 to pay costs of Rs.15,000/- to the
Petitioner-Society within a period of four weeks. If the
costs are not paid by Respondent No.4 within the
stipulated time, in addition to the action that may be
taken against him for breach of the order, the same
shall be included in the maintenance bill and shall be
recovered from him in accordance with law.
19) With the above directions, Writ Petition is allowed and disposed
of with costs as directed above.
20) In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, nothing survives to be
adjudicated in the Interim Application and the same is disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Page No.15 of 15
Signed by: Megha S. Parab 6 October 2026
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/10/2026 15:25:29
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.