Bombay High Court
RANJEET BHATTACHARYA AND ORSversusDIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR CS AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The order appointing the Administrative Committee dated 24 July 2026 shall remain stayed until the Revisional Authority decides the stay application, which must be decided within ten days on its merits.
Summary
The petitioners sought a stay of the order dated 24 July 2026 appointing an Administrative Committee for a society due to lack of quorum, arguing that the stay application before the Minister had not been heard. The court noted that the stay application was pending before the Hon'ble Minister and that a caveat was filed by Respondent No.3 but no appearance was made, deeming formal notice unnecessary. It directed that the order of 24 July 2026 remain stayed until the Revisional Authority decides the stay application, which must be decided within ten days on its merits. The court also ordered a pro tem arrangement and set a hearing before the Minister on 25 August 2026, directing the petitioner to inform Respondent No.3. Consequently, the writ petition and the interim application were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the order appointing the Administrative Committee should remain stayed pending the decision on the stay application.
- Whether formal notice to Respondent No.3 is required in the present proceedings.
- Whether the Revisional Authority must decide the stay application within a specified time frame.
- Whether a pro tem arrangement can be made pending the Revisional Authority's decision.
Subjects
- stay of order
- administrative committee
- quorum
- revision
- ministerial jurisdiction
- civil appellate jurisdiction
- writ petition
- interim application
Judgment
Vaishnavi 904-WP-10914-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10914 OF 2026
Ranjeet Bhattacharya and Ors. ...Petitioners
V/s.
Divisional Joint Registrar and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 24454 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 10914 OF 2026
Sun Beam High Estates Pvt Ltd. ...Petitioner
V/s.
Ranjeet Bhattacharya and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Mr. Karl Tamboly with Mr. Zahan Setalvad, Ms. Vaishali Sanghavi, Ms.
Vidhi Porwal, Mr. Pratik Shetty, Ms. Prachi Parmar and Mr. Ameet Mehta
i/b M/s. Solicis Lex, for Petitioners.
Mr. Mukesh Vashi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jaineel Vashi i/b M/s. M. P.
Vashi and Associates, for Interveneor.
Mr. A.C. Bhadang, AGP for Respondent-State.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 21 AUGUST 2026
P.C.:
1) The limited grievance raised in the present Petition is that the
application for stay preferred by the Petitioners in pending revision filed
Page No.1 of 3
21 August 2026
Vaishnavi 904-WP-10914-2026
before the Hon’ble Minister (Co-operation) is not being taken up for
hearing and decision. The Petitioners have suffered order dated 24 July
2026 passed by the Deputy Registrar appointing an Administrative
Committee on the Society on account of lack of sufficient quorum. It
appears that order dated 24 July 2026 was stayed by the Divisional Joint
Registrar during pendency of the Appeal No. 262 of 2026. The Appeal,
however, is dismissed on 13 August 2026. The Petitioners have preferred
Revision against order dated 13 August 2026 before the Hon’ble Minister.
2) I have heard Mr. Tamboly, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners. It appears that a caveat has been filed by the Advocate Mr.
Sunil Shukla on behalf of Respondent No. 3. Mr. Tamboly tenders an
affidavit of private service of notice on Advocate Mr. Sunil Shukla.
However, none has appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 3. Considering
the nature of order that is proposed to be passed, in my view, it is not
necessary to issue a formal notice to Respondent No. 3.
3) Mr. Bhadang, the learned AGP appearing for Respondent-State,
on instructions, submits that the application for stay shall be decided by
the Hon’ble Minister within a period of two weeks. It appears that certain
precipitative actions are being taken by the Administrative Committee in
relation to redevelopment of Society’s building. In that view of the
matter, pro tem arrangement needs to be made till the Revisional
Authority decides the application for stay.
4) Accordingly, the statement made on behalf of the Revisional
Authority that the application for stay shall be decided within a period of
Page No.2 of 3
21 August 2026
Vaishnavi 904-WP-10914-2026
10 days is recorded and accepted. Till the Revisional Authority decides
the application for stay, the order dated 24 July 2026 passed by the
Deputy Registrar shall remain stayed. The Revisional Authority shall,
however, decide the application for stay on its own merits, without being
influenced by the pro tem arrangement made by this Court. All
contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open.
5) Parties shall appear before the Hon’ble Minister on 25 August
2026. The Petitioner to serve intimation of the date of hearing before the
Hon’ble Minister to Respondent No. 3 by issuing letter to him.
6) The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. The Interim
Application is also disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Page No.3 of 3
21 August 2026
Checking your session…