RAMESH IYER AND ORSversusTHE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOC AND ORS

                                                                          904-wp-10259-2025.doc


                      Shabnoor
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO.10259 OF 2025

         Digitally
                      Ramesh Iyer & Ors.                           … Petitioners
         signed by
         SHABNOOR
SHABNOOR AYUB
                                 V/s.
AYUB     PATHAN
PATHAN   Date:
         2026.01.28
                      The Deputy Registrar of
         17:32:25
         +0530
                      Cooperative Societies & Ors.                 … Respondents

                      Mr. Vinod Rane a/w Amol Joshi, for the Petitioners.
                      Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP, for the State – Respondent Nos.1
                      and 3.


                                                  CORAM      : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                  DATED      : JANUARY 28, 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.      The present writ petition arises from an order passed by the
                      competent authority in exercise of powers under Section 77A of
                      the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. At the stage of
                      admission, certain interim orders came to be passed. Those orders
                      proceeded on an incorrect assumption that the petition took
                      exception to an order under Section 79A(3) of the said Act. On a
                      closer scrutiny of the record, including the pleadings and the
                      appeal memo, it becomes clear that the challenge is in fact only to
                      the order passed under Section 77A.

                      2.      A careful reading of the appeal memo filed by the petitioner
                      leaves no room for doubt that the order impugned before the
                      appellate authority was confined to the action under Section 77A.
                      The appeal memo does not contain any reference to an order



                                                        1
                                                          904-wp-10259-2025.doc


under Section 79A(3). Nor does it contain any ground assailing the
legality or validity of a disqualification order. This distinction is
material because the statutory scheme treats the two provisions
differently.    Section     79A(3)       deals   with   the     power       of
disqualification. Section 77A deals with the appointment of an
Administrator in specified contingencies.

3.       The grounds raised in the appeal also limit the scope of
controversy. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order
under Section 77A by contending that the conditions for invoking
the said provision were not satisfied. However, the facts disclose
that the order under Section 77A was not an independent exercise
of power. It flowed from and was consequential to the
disqualification of the office bearers by the Registrar under Section
79A(3). The statutory consequence of disqualification is the need
to appoint an Administrator to ensure the continuity of
administration. The challenge to the consequential order cannot be
considered without examining the validity of the foundational
order.

4.       The   petitioner   has   not     questioned    the   foundational
disqualification order. That order continues to operate. In such a
situation, the writ petition only seeks to unsettle the consequence
without questioning the cause. Judicial review cannot be exercised
so as to disturb a consequential order while leaving untouched the
primary order which gave rise to such consequence. The challenge
therefore fails at the threshold. For abundant clarity, it is observed
that if the petitioner intended to dispute the legality of the
disqualification, an appropriate challenge ought to have been filed



                                     2
                                                      904-wp-10259-2025.doc


to that specific order.

5.    In view of the above findings, the writ petition does not
merit interference with the action taken under Section 77A.
However, in order to ensure that the cooperative society is placed
under a duly elected managing committee without undue delay,
the Administrator shall conduct and complete the elections within
a period of three months from the date of this order.

6.    The Administrator shall file a compliance report before this
Court within the said period so that the process attains finality.

7.    The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above
terms. No order as to costs.

8.    List the petition on 29 April 2026 under the caption “For
Compliance.”


                                              (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                  3