Bombay High Court
SHRI. ARJUNAN V. KRISHNAN AND ORSversusTHE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATION , MARKETING AND TEXTILES AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that there was no valid reason to interfere with the factual findings of the Enquiry Officer, which were upheld by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities, and dismissed the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioners challenged the order of the Minister dismissing their revision application and confirming the Divisional Joint Registrar’s order that apportioned losses of a credit society against them. They alleged that the Enquiry Officer, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority had not applied their mind to the affidavit of Mr. Girish Misal, in which he admitted sole responsibility for misappropriating Rs 62,16,276, and that there was no independent determination of the petitioners’ liability. The court noted that the petitioner’s counsel was aware that Mr. Misal later retracted his admission, claiming he was coerced into signing the affidavit, and that the authorities had considered this submission. The Enquiry Officer’s report detailed irregularities in loan sanctioning and cheque issuance, indicating systemic misappropriation beyond the petitioners. Finding that the lower authorities had duly examined the evidence and that the petitioners had not shown any error of law or perversity, the court declined to interfere with the factual findings. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Enquiry Officer, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority failed to apply their mind to the admissions made by Mr. Girish Misal regarding misappropriation.
- Whether there was an independent and proper determination of the petitioners' liability for the alleged misappropriation.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the factual findings of the Enquiry Officer upheld by the appellate and revisional authorities under the writ jurisdiction.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Co-operative societies
- Misappropriation
- Enquiry Officer
- Appellate authority
- Revisional authority
- Writ petition
- Section 88
- Liability
- Cheque irregularities
- Loan sanctioning
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:34934
Megha 30_wp_10056_2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10056 OF 2019
Arjunan V. Krishnan and Ors. ...Petitioners
V/s.
Hon’ble Minister for Co-operation
Marketing and Textiles and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Mr. Kishor Patil with Mr. Pratik Rahate, Mr. Anish Kikle and Ms. Akshada
Nagrale for the Petitioners.
Mr. Joel D’souza i/b. Mr. Suresh Kamble for Respondent No.5/Society.
Mr. S.M. Khaire with Ms. Gayatri Shenvi for Respondent Nos.9 and 11
Ms. Sulbha Chipade, AGP for Respondent -State.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 24 AUGUST 2026.
P.C.:
1) By this Petition, Petitioners challenge order dated 3 June 2019
passed by the Hon’ble Minister, Co-operation, dismissing Revision
Application No.559 of 2018 and confirming the order passed by the
Divisional Joint Registrar on 26 June 2018 dismissing Appeal No.392 of
2016. The Divisional Joint Registrar has in turn confirmed the report of
the Enquiry Officer under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960, by which various amounts of losses caused to
Page No.1 of 4
24 August 2026
Megha 30_wp_10056_2019
Respondent No.5- Credit Society have been apportioned against the
Petitioners and Respondent Nos.8 and 9.
2) I have heard Mr. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, Mr. D’souza, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No.5-Society, Mr. Khaire, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent
Nos.9 to 11 and Ms. Chipade, the learned AGP for the Respondent-State
and have considered the submissions canvassed by them.
3) The main contention sought to be urged by Mr. Patil is non-
application of mind on the part of the Enquiry Officer, Appellate
Authority and Revisional Authority to the express admissions given by
Mr. Girish Misal in the form of affidavit dated 24 September 2013 that he
alone is responsible for misappropriation of amount of Rs.62,16,276/-.
My attention is invited to Roznama before the Enquiry Officer in which
again Mr. Girish Misal has apparently accepted the mistake in respect of
the alleged misappropriated amounts.
4) Perusal of the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar
would clearly indicate that he has applied his mind to the said defence
raised by the Petitioners. As a matter of fact, Mr. Girish Misal filed
written submissions dated 16 April 2018 and resiled from the alleged
admissions given in the form of affidavit. In his written submissions, he
has stated that on 27 September 2013 he was called by the committee
members in the office of the Society and was beaten by them. Then the
committee members purchased a stamp paper from the stamp vendor in
his name and he was compelled to sign the affidavit. Thus, Mr. Girish
Page No.2 of 4
24 August 2026
Megha 30_wp_10056_2019
Misal is no longer admitting his liability in respect of the alleged
misappropriation. It appears that cheques were procured by the
committee members from Mr. Girish Misal for recovery of lost amount. It
is however, an admitted position that none of the cheques issued by him
are encashed. The Revisional Authority has also taken note of this aspect
in the order dated 3 June 2019. It therefore, cannot be contended that
aspect of alleged admissions given by Mr. Girish Misal is totally ignored
by the authorities below.
5) It is also sought to be contended by Mr. Patil that there is no
independent determination by the Enquiry Officer qua responsibility of
the Petitioners in respect of the alleged misappropriation. However,
report of the Enquiry Officer would indicate a detailed discussion as to
how the committee members have faltered in issuance of various
cheques. Each of the cheques relating to misappropriation has been
discussed in great detail by the Enquiry Officer. It therefore, cannot be
contended that report of the Enquiry Officer suffers from the vice of
perversity. In fact, the report of the Enquiry Officer would indicate
serious discrepancies in the manner in which loans are sanctioned and
cheques are issued. The findings would indicate that the loans of several
persons, who were not even members of the Society are shown to have
been sanctioned and the amounts against those loan accounts are
siphoned off. In several cases, loans are sanctioned in the name of one
person and the cheque is issued in the name of another person. In
several cases, though the loans are shown to have been availed by some
other persons, the beneficiary is shown as Girish Misal.
Page No.3 of 4
24 August 2026
Megha 30_wp_10056_2019
6) Considering the above position, I do not find any valid reason to
interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer as
concurrently upheld by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities. Writ
Petition is accordingly dismissed.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.4 of 4
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 24 August 2026
Date: 25/08/2026 16:07:40
Checking your session…