Bombay High Court
Julie MudrasversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that the Registrar has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, and therefore the writ petition could not be entertained.
Summary
Nine members of a co‑operative society sought a mandamus directing the Deputy District Registrar to hear their objections to the society's redevelopment process. The petitioners alleged non‑disclosure of information, but the court noted that the General Body meeting minutes showed a majority decision to appoint a developer and that an agreement was to be signed. The State relied on a circular dated 4 November 2025, issued under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960, which limits the Registrar’s role and bars review of the society’s internal decisions. The court held that the Registrar has no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance and that the petition could not be entertained in its present form. Consequently, the petition was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to pursue any appropriate remedy.
Issues considered
- Whether the Deputy District Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, has jurisdiction to entertain a mandamus petition challenging a co‑operative society's decision to appoint a developer for redevelopment.
- Whether Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960, together with the 4 November 2025 circular, precludes the Registrar from reviewing the General Body's decision.
- Whether the writ petition can be entertained in the form filed.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- mandamus
- co-operative societies
- redevelopment
- jurisdiction
- Section 79A
- transparency
- withdrawal
Judgment
NISHA Digitally signed by
NISHA SANDEEP
SANDEEP CHITNIS
Date: 2026.09.05
CHITNIS
9-wp.11340.2026.doc
12:49:32 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11340 OF 2026
Julie Mudras and Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
Ms. Pushpa V. Ganediwala with Mr. Bhushan Shinde, Ms. Anshu
Agrawal, Mr. Pradyumna Agrawal and Ms. Trusha C. i/b/ Pushpa
Ganediwala and Company for the Petitioners.
Mr. Y. D. Patil, A.G.P. with Mr. S.H. Kankal, A.G.P. for the
Respondent-State.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 1st SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C. :
1. The nine members of respondent No.4-Society have
approached this Court praying for an issuance of mandamus directing
the Deputy District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, ‘H’/West Ward to
exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and to take up, hear and decide
the representations and objections submitted by the petitioners
concerning the re-development process, as regards the respondent
No.4.
N. S. Chitnis 1/3
9-wp.11340.2026.doc
2. Having heard the learned counsel Ms. Ganediwala
appearing for the petitioners and the learned A.G.P. for the State, we
have noted that the objections raised by the petitioners pertain to the
alleged non-disclosure of information by the Society. However, we find
that the Minutes of the General Body Meeting reveal that a decision
was taken by majority to appoint a Developer. Out of 18 members, 15
members agreed to the appointment of a particular Developer, and it is
also informed that an Agreement has been informed to be signed.
The learned A.G.P. has placed reliance upon the Circular
dated 4th November 2025 issued by the Commissioner for Co-
operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pune, as regards the
limited role to be exercised under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960, which confers power upon the
Government to issue directions in the public interest. As far as
redevelopment projects are concerned, the said Circular clarifies that
the Registrar has no role to play in the decision taken by the Society
N. S. Chitnis 2/3
9-wp.11340.2026.doc
for appointment of a Developer and that he should not entertain any
application seeking review of the decision taken in the General Body
Meeting, the General Body being the final authority in that regard.
3. In the wake of the aforesaid, since we are of the view that
the petition cannot be entertained in the form in which it is prayed
that the Registrar shall entertain the grievance of the petitioners and
ensure transparency in the re-development process, Ms.Ganediwala
seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to seek
such appropriate remedy as is available to the members in law.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn,
with liberty as prayed.
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
N. S. Chitnis 3/3
Checking your session…