SARITA CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.versusTHE HONBLE MINISTER FOR CO-OPERATION AND ORS

                                                                905-wp-3541-2015 with connected.doc


                      Shabnoor


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO.3541 OF 2015

                      Sarita Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.     … Petitioner
SHABNOOR
AYUB                             V/s.
PATHAN                The Minister for Cooperation & Textile
Digitally signed by   Department & Ors.                           … Respondents
SHABNOOR AYUB
PATHAN
Date: 2026.02.12
16:29:11 +0530


                                                   WITH
                                       WRIT PETITION NO.1640 OF 2015

                      Sheetal F Building
                      Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.            … Petitioner
                                 V/s.
                      The Minister for Cooperation & Textile
                      Department & Ors.                           … Respondents


                                                   WITH
                                       WRIT PETITION NO.11252 OF 2014

                      Sarita Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.     … Petitioner
                                 V/s.
                      The Minister for Cooperation & Textile
                      Department & Ors.                           … Respondents

                      Mr. Kishor Tembe with Madhavi Nalawade, for the Petitioner
                      in WP Nos./3541/2015 & 11252/2014.
                      Ms. S. D. Chipade, AGP, for the State – Respondent Nos.1 to 3
                      in WP/3541/2015.
                      Ms. Mamta Shrivastava, AGP, for the State – Respondent
                      Nos.1 to 3 in WP/1640/2015.
                      Ms. V. R. Raje, AGP, for the State – Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in
                      WP/11252/2014.




                                                      1
                                              905-wp-3541-2015 with connected.doc


                                CORAM     : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                DATED     : FEBRUARY 12, 2026

P.C.:

1.      Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2.      The present writ petitions call in question the legality and
validity of the order passed by the Registrar in exercise of powers
under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act,
1960, whereby a separate cooperative society has been registered
consisting of certain persons who were formerly members of the
petitioner society.

3.      According to the petitioner, the building known as “G–Sarita”
comprises a ground floor and six upper floors. The ground floor
consists of 10 commercial shops and 8 residential flats, all forming
part of a common structural framework and sharing a common
wall. In aggregate, the building consists of 56 residential flats and
10 shops. The entire construction is structurally interlinked and
constitutes one composite and integrated building.

4.      The petitioner society came to be registered under the
provisions of the MCS Act on 30 January 1986. Subsequently, the
shop owners tendered their resignations from the membership of
the     petitioner    society   and   submitted   a    proposal       seeking
registration of a separate cooperative society in respect of the 10
shops. These shops admittedly form part of the same building for
which the petitioner society stands registered.

5.      By a show cause notice dated 4 February 2010, the Deputy



                                      2
                                                905-wp-3541-2015 with connected.doc


Registrar called upon the petitioner to explain why a separate
society should not be registered in respect of the said shops. The
petitioner submitted its reply on 10 February 2010 opposing the
proposal. It was contended that the shop premises form an
inseparable part of a single integrated structure and that mere
fulfilment of the minimum numerical requirement prescribed for
registration cannot justify registration of a new cooperative society
when the premises are already included within an existing
registered society. The Deputy Registrar rejected these objections
and proceeded to grant registration to respondent No.4 society.

6.    While      granting   registration   to    respondent        No.4, the
authorities under the Act recorded a finding that the portion of the
building for which registration was sought constituted an
independent structure. The petitioner thereafter preferred an
appeal under Section 152 of the MCS Act and also filed an
application      under   Section   21A     seeking      de-registration         of
respondent No.4 society. The appeal, revision and the application
under Section 21A were all dismissed. Being aggrieved by these
concurrent orders, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction
of this Court.

7.    Respondent No.4 was duly served with notice of the present
petition. An Advocate entered appearance on its behalf and filed a
reply opposing the petition. On 10 February 2026, when the
matter was called out, none appeared on behalf of respondent
No.4. The matter was adjourned and placed for final hearing with
a clear indication that the adjournment was being granted as a last
opportunity. Even on the adjourned date, there is no appearance



                                    3
                                         905-wp-3541-2015 with connected.doc


on behalf of respondent No.4, though the name of its Advocate
continues to be shown on the board. In these circumstances, the
Court proceeds to decide the petition on merits in the absence of
respondent No.4.

8.    Having heard the learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioner and having examined the material placed on record, this
Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders granting
registration to respondent No.4 society cannot be sustained in law
and are liable to be quashed and set aside for the reasons recorded
hereinafter.

9.    It is not in dispute that the persons who moved the proposal
for registration of respondent No.4 society were, at the relevant
time, members of the petitioner society. The petitioner society has
been in existence since 1986. For more than two decades, the
building stood governed by one registered society. The proposal for
forming a separate society came much later, in the year 2010. The
record further shows that the entire structure, consisting of 10
shops and 56 flats, was constructed under a single sanctioned
building plan. There is no material to suggest that the shops were
conceived or approved as a separate and independent unit. The
building is one composite structure, both in design and in legal
character. When a society is formed and registered in respect of a
building constructed under one sanctioned plan, all units forming
part of that plan ordinarily fall within its fold, unless lawfully
separated in accordance with statutory procedure.

10.   The core question is not whether the shops can be physically




                                 4
                                            905-wp-3541-2015 with connected.doc


demarcated from the residential flats. Physical separability by itself
does not determine the legal position. Such an inquiry may
become relevant where the competent authority exercises statutory
power of division or bifurcation under Sections 17 and 18 of the
MCS Act, after following due procedure and recording reasons. In
the present case, there is no order of bifurcation. The original
society continues to subsist. In the absence of a statutory division
of the existing society, the authorities could not have permitted
registration of another society in respect of premises which already
form part of a duly registered cooperative society. Registration
under Section 9 cannot be used as a means to indirectly fragment
an existing society. If such a course is permitted, it would defeat
the scheme of the Act and create overlapping jurisdictions over the
same property. The statute contemplates orderly formation,
alteration, and division of societies through defined procedures.
Those safeguards cannot be bypassed.

11.   In my considered view, the authorities have failed to
appreciate the legal effect of the prior registration of the petitioner
society and the absence of any order under Sections 17 or 18. By
treating a portion of the same building as an independent structure
without a lawful process of bifurcation, the authorities have
misdirected themselves in law. The result is that two societies now
claim authority over different parts of one integrated building,
which the statute does not contemplate without proper division.
This approach amounts to a misapplication of the provisions of the
MCS Act and has led to an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. The
impugned orders, therefore, cannot be allowed to stand.



                                  5
                                           905-wp-3541-2015 with connected.doc


12.   Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

13.   The writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.


                                             (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                  6