Bombay High Court
WADALA HEIGHTS CO OP. HSG. SOC. LTDversusGAYA BAKSH YADAV AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the enquiry report dated 13 October 2025 was perfunctory and must be set aside, and a fresh enquiry under Section 83 should be conducted.
Summary
The Wadala Heights Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. challenged the Assistant Registrar's order appointing an enquiry officer under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and the subsequent order under Section 88, alleging that the enquiry was perfunctory. The Society had conducted a forensic audit and an internal committee inquiry, but the appointed enquiry officer relied solely on these preliminary reports without independently examining the accounts, exonerating the manager and holding the chairman, secretary and treasurer liable. The High Court held that findings of a Section 83 enquiry that are not the result of a proper, independent inquiry are not amenable to enforcement and can be reviewed. Consequently, the Court set aside the enquiry report dated 13 October 2025 and the Assistant Registrar's order of 17 November 2025, directing the appointment of a new enquiry officer to conduct a fresh, thorough enquiry. The petition was partly allowed and disposed of, with no order as to costs, and the interim application was also disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the findings of an enquiry under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act constitute a decision that can be challenged in court.
- Whether a perfunctory enquiry, lacking independent examination of records, violates the statutory requirements of Section 83.
- Whether the order made under Section 88 of the Act based on such an enquiry can be set aside.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 81, 83, 88
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 — s. Rule 72(2)
Subjects
- Co-operative societies
- Section 83 enquiry
- Section 88 order
- Judicial review
- Perfunctory enquiry
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
- Forensic audit
- Internal audit committee
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:39116
Megha 902_wpst_27589_2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.27589 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7480 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.27589 OF 2026
Wadala Heights Co-operative Housing
Society Ltd. and Anr. ...Petitioners
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Mr. Aameer V. Kale with Ms. Alisha A. Patel i/b. M/s. A.K. Legal &
Associates for the Petitioners.
Mr. Amod Eklaspur for Respondent Nos.5 and 6.
Mr. Y.D. Patil, AGP for Respondent-State.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 23 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1) The Petitioner-Society is aggrieved by order dated 17 November
2025 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, F-N Ward,
Mumbai (Assistant Registrar) accepting report of the Enquiry Officer
under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960
(MCS Act) and directing the enquiry by appointment of Enquiry Officer
under Section 88 of the MCS Act.
Page No.1 of 4
23 September 2026
Megha 902_wpst_27589_2026
2) It appears that the Petitioner- Society had filed a revision against
order dated 17 November 2025, which is held to be not maintainable. In
the meantime, the Enquiry Officer appointed vide order dated 17
November 2025 has issued a notice to the Petitioners on 1 September
2026 under Rule 72(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules,
1961.
3) I have heard Mr. Kale, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners, Mr. Eklaspur, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent
Nos.5 and 6 and Mr. Patil, the learned AGP appearing for the
Respondent-State and have considered the submissions canvassed by
them.
4) Ordinarily mere findings recorded in Section 83 inquiry do not
constitute a decision capable of being challenged. However, in the
unique facts of the case, it is seen that no real inquiry is conducted by
the inquiry officer. It is on account of this peculiar fact, this Petition is
being entertained.
5) It appears that the Society by itself had conducted a forensic
audit of its accounts through M/s. B.P. Sanghani & Associates, Chartered
Accountant. Forensic auditor submitted only a preliminary report.
Additionally, the Society had also constituted an internal enquiry
committee which had apparently held the Chairman, Secretary and
Treasurer as well as Administrator responsible for discrepancies in the
accounts. Additionally, the auditor appointed under Section 81 of the
Page No.2 of 4
23 September 2026
Megha 902_wpst_27589_2026
MCS Act, Mr. Dinesh Prabhu had apparently submitted a special report
dated 13 January 2025.
6) The Assistant Registrar took note of special report dated 13
January 2025 in addition to complaint made by 41 members of the
Society and proceeded to direct enquiry under Section 83 of the MCS Act
by order dated 17 April 2025 by appointing an enquiry officer. The
Enquiry Officer appointed vide order dated 17 April 2025 has conducted
an enquiry under Section 83 of the MCS Act in a perfunctory manner.
The Enquiry Officer took note of the interim forensic audit report and
proceeded to exonerate manager of the Society- Ms. Sonali Mondhe. The
Enquiry Officer thereafter took note of preliminary forensic audit report
as well as report of the internal audit committee constituted by the
Society and blindly accepted both the documents and proceeded to hold
Society’s Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer responsible. Report of the
Enquiry Officer dated 13 October 2025 does not indicate that he applied
independent mind to the records before him. He has merely relied on
preliminary forensic audit report and report of the internal committee
for recording findings in his report. This is a reason why this Court has
arrived at a conclusion that the enquiry conducted by Enquiry Officer
under Section 83 of the MCS Act is perfunctory. The findings recorded in
Section 83 enquiry becomes basis for apportionment of losses /damages
against accused persons under Section 88 of the MCS Act. In that view of
the matter it is necessary that enquiry under Section 83 of the MCS Act is
conducted properly. In the present case, the Enquiry Officer has failed to
conduct proper enquiry into the allegations and has blindly accepted the
preliminary report of the forensic auditor and report of the internal
Page No.3 of 4
23 September 2026
Megha 902_wpst_27589_2026
committee. He himself ought to have examined accounts and records of
the Society for the purpose of recording his findings.
7) In view of the above discussion, enquiry report dated 13 October
2025 conducted under Section 83 of the MCS Act deserves to be set aside
and a fresh enquiry needs to be conducted. Since the Enquiry Officer has
not properly conducted the enquiry, it is necessary that the Assistant
Registrar appoints some other Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry under
Section 83 of the MCS Act.
8) The Petition accordingly succeeds in part and I proceed to pass
the following order:-
(i) The enquiry report dated 13 October 2025 as well as
order dated 17 November 2025 passed by the Assistant
Registrar under Section 88 of the MCS Act are set aside.
(ii) Assistant Registrar shall appoint another Enquiry Officer
for conduct of enquiry under Section 83 of the MCS Act,
who shall conduct the enquiry by going through the
records and accounts of the society and submit a report.
(iii) All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly
kept open.
9) With the above directions, Writ Petition is partly allowed and
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
10) Interim Application stands disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.4 of 4
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 23 September 2026
Date: 24/09/2026 17:24:49
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.