DHOPESHWAR CO-OP. SOCIETY (FISHAERY)versusSMT. ANKITA ARVIND PATIL AND ORS

                                                                    WP 1136-2020 C2.doc



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 1136 OF 2020

                   Dhopeshwar Co-op. Society (Fishaery)
                   Through its Chairman, Dhananjay Popat Kadam,
                   Age: 42, Occ: Agriculture
                   R/at Kadam Wadi, Post Tadwale,
SNEHA
NITIN              Tal. Shiral District Sangali,
CHAVAN             Pin 415408.
Digitally signed                                                         ...Petitioner
by SNEHA
NITIN CHAVAN                   Versus
Date: 2026.08.28
14:15:07 +0530
                   1. Smt. Ankita Arvind Patil
                   Chief Promotor N. Akshay Fishery Business. Co.
                   Op. Society. Shiral, Tal. Shiral, Dist. Sangli.

                   2. Shri Mahadev Kadam, Shiral Peta Fishery
                   Business, Co Op Society, Shiral, Tal. Shiral, Dist.
                   Sangali.

                   3. Shri. Jagdish Dinkar Patil
                   Dam affected Fishery, Co Op. Society, Padali,
                   Tal. Shiral. Dist. Sangli.

                   4. The Assistant Registrar Fisheries and Milk
                   Dept. Sangli.

                   5. The Assistant Commissioner Fisheries Dept.
                   Sangali.

                   6. Divisional Deputy Commissioner Fisheries Dpt.
                   Pune.

                   7. Divisional Deputy Registrar, Mumbai.

                   8. The Commissioner Fisheries, Maharashtra
                   State, Mumbai.

                   9. State of Maharashtra.                              ...Respondents




                   Sneha Chavan                                                           1
                                                  WP 1136-2020 C2.doc



                              WITH
               WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 35393 OF 2024

1. Dhopeshwar Matsya Vavasayik Sahakari
Sanstha, Maryadit. Upawale (Kadamwadi)
Through Promoter- Dhananjay Popat Kadam
Age-47 years. Occupation- Agriculture & Fishing,
R/o- Kadamwadi, Taluka- Shirala, District-
Sangli.                                                ...Petitioner

            Versus
1. Ld. Commissioner of Fisheries @
Ld. Addl. Registrar Co-operative (Fishery)
Society Mumbai.
Having office at - Mittal Tower, 8th floor, In front
of Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2. Ld. Dy. Registrar Co-operative (Fishery)
Society, Mumbai.
Having office at - Mittal Tower, 8th floor, In front
of Mantralaya, Mumbai.

3. Ld. Asst. Registrar (Milk) Society, Sangli-
Miraj.
Having office at- Near Aambetkar Garden,
Government Milk Dairy, Miraj.

4. Ld. Divisional Dy. Commissioner of Fisheries,
Pune Having office at- Matsyabij Utpadak
Kendra, Survey No. 15, Hadapsar, Pune Solapur
Road, Hadapasar, Pune-411028.

5. Ld. Asst. Commissioner of Fisheries, Sangli.
Having office at- First Floor, Government
Building, Vijaynagar, Sangli.

6. Proposed Akshay Macchimar Vavasayik
Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Shirala.
Taluka- Shirala, District- Sangli Through
Promoter- Ankita Arvind Patil Age- Adult,
Occupation- Household, R/o- Khed, Taluka-
Shirala, District- Sangli.                             ...Respondents



Sneha Chavan                                                            2
                                                     WP 1136-2020 C2.doc



                               ****
Mr. Umesh Pawar a/w. Vijay Kharat & Shivprasad Gaikwad for
Petitioners in both petitions.
Mr. Sushant S. Prabhune (through V.C.), for Respondent No.1 in
WP/1136/2020 and for Respondent No.6 in WP(St)35393/2024.
Mr. Vishwanath Talkute a/w. Mahesh Bhosale and Shivaji Kokare for
Respondent No.2 in WP/1136/2020.
Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni i/b Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad for Respondent No.3 in
WP/1136/2020.
Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, for Respondent Nos.1 to 5-State in WP
(St)/35393/2024 and for Respondent Nos. 4 to 9- State in
WP/1136/2020.
                             ****

                                CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                           RESERVED ON : 25th MARCH 2026
                        PRONOUNCED ON : 27th AUGUST 2026
                            (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)

JUDGMENT :


1.             Invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the
Petitioner-Society is challenging common Judgment and order dated
19.10.2018 passed by learned Commissioner of Fisheries and Additional
Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (Fisheries), State of Maharashtra,
Mumbai. By the said impugned order, Revision Application Nos. 39 of
2016 and 40 of 2016 filed by the Petitioner-Society through its
President, are rejected, thereby confirming orders dated 13.02.2015 and
18.02.2015 by Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies (Fisheries) in
Appeal Nos. 1 of 2015 and 26 of 2015. In effect, the Petitioner-society's
registration is cancelled and action under Section 21A of Maharashtra
Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short ‘the said Act’) is initiated.

2.             For convenience, Respondents as well as State Authorities are



Sneha Chavan                                                               3
                                                   WP 1136-2020 C2.doc



referred to as per their position in the cause title of WP/1136/2020.

                                  BRIEF BACKGROUND

3.             The Petitioner is a society of members engaged in fishing
activities. The Petitioner-Society submitted its proposal on 21.12.2013
for carrying out fishing activities in Morna Dam. The Registrar took
certain objections in the proposal submitted by the Petitioner-society
and communicated deficiencies. On 26.12.2013, other proposals
including that of Respondent No.1 and Respondent No. 3 were filed. On
03.01.2014, the Petitioner's proposal was forwarded. Government
declared new policy in respect of allotment for fisheries by issuing
Government Resolution (GR) dated 26.06.2014. On 16.07.2014, new
policy under GR dated 26.06.2014 was stayed. In such circumstances,
the Assistant Commissioner for Fisheries conducted visit/inspection on
05.09.2014 in respect to Petitioner's proposal. On 19.09.2014, no
objection certificate (NOC) was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of
Fisheries, Sangli in favour of the Petitioner making reference to a letter
dated 02.09.2014 issued by State Minister for Fisheries and also making
reference to telephonic instruction received in that behalf. The said NOC
was issued subject to certain conditions including that the Petitioner-
Society shall not claim access to Morna Dam for 5 years during its
allotment in favour of Respondent No. 2 from 2013-14 to 2017-18. On
23.09.2014, the Petitioner-Society came to be registered.

4.             Respondent No. 1 & 2 filed Appeal No. 26 of 2014 and Appeal
No. 1 of 2015 under Section 152 of the said Act respectively,
challenging the registration of Petitioner-Society. On 13.02.2015 and
18.02.2015 the said appeals came to be allowed by Deputy Registrar,
Co-Op. Societies (Fisheries) thereby canceling Petitioner's registration



Sneha Chavan                                                             4
                                                     WP 1136-2020 C2.doc



and initiating action under Section 21A of the said Act.

5.             The Petitioner-Society filed Revision Application Nos. 39 of
2016 and 40 of 2016 against the aforesaid orders passed under section
154 of the said Act. By orders dated 19.09.2017 and 25.09.2017, the
then Commissioner for Fisheries and Additional Register Co-operative
Societies (Fisheries) allowed both Revisions, setting aside the orders
passed         by   Deputy   Registrar   and   restoring    Petitioner-Society’s
registration.

6.             Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 then filed Writ Petition Nos. 5109 of
2018 and 4610 of 2018 against the above orders passed by the
Commissioner. On 04.07.2018, this Court (Coram: R. D. Dhanuka J.)
heard both the petitions together and allowed them, thereby setting
aside the orders dated 19.09.2017 and 25.09.2017 and restoring
Revision Application Nos. 39 of 2016 and 40 of 2016 to the file of
Commissioner of Fisheries, who was directed to hear all parties and
after complying principles of natural justice, decide the same on merits,
without being influenced by earlier observations made by the then
Commissioner and also without any interference from the concerned
Minister of Fisheries or any other authority. It was specifically directed
that if the learned Commissioner for Fisheries who passed earlier orders
was still in the place, he shall not be assigned the hearing and it shall be
heard by other competent officer. The Commissioner for Fisheries was
directed not to take into consideration any oral or written instructions
by Minister for Fisheries while passing fresh order. The registration of
Petitioner's society was stayed till hearing of the revision applications.

7.             On 19.10.2018, the Commissioner for Fisheries has passed
common impugned judgment and order allowing the revisions and



Sneha Chavan                                                               5
                                                        WP 1136-2020 C2.doc



confirming the orders passed by Deputy Registrar, thereby canceling
registration of Petitioner's society and initiating action under Section
21A of the said Act.

8.             In these circumstances, the Petitioner filed above writ petitions
challenging the common judgment and order dated 19.10.2018. The
Petitioner was permitted to amend the petition for adding grounds. The
parties have filed affidavits-in-reply as well as rejoinders.

9.             Since the petitions remained pending for a long time at
admission stage, they are taken up for final disposal by consent of
learned Counsel for the parties.

                                        SUBMISSIONS

10.            Mr.   Pawar,   learned   Counsel   for    the     Petitioner-Society
submitted as under.

10.1.             That Morna dam is a ‘dharan talao’ and therefore, as per
condition No.6 in letter-cum-circular dated 01.09.1989, there can be
more than one fishery societies registered.

10.2.             That after communication of deficiencies in the proposal,
the Petitioner had removed all of them on 30.12.2013 on the Assistant
Commissioner had forwarded the proposal on 03.01.2014 for NOC. As
such, the findings about non-removal of objections/deficiencies is
erroneous and unsustainable.

10.3.             That new conditions mentioned in letter-cum-Circular
dated 01.09.1989 cannot be imposed on the Petitioner and non
compliance with condition Nos. 4, 10 and 13 of letter dated 20.09.2014
cannot be the reason for canceling registration. That registration



Sneha Chavan                                                                  6
                                                    WP 1136-2020 C2.doc



certificate itself is a conclusive proof of Petitioner-Society complying
with     all   conditions.   That   since   in   letter   dated       26.12.2013
communicating deficiencies, no objection ‘about head office of the
proposed society’ was raised, the same cannot be considered to the
detriment of Petitioners' right.

10.4.          That the Assistant Commissioner of Fisheries has made spot
inspection before registration was granted and all members of the
Petitioner-Society are active fishermen. That there was no requirement
of active fishermen (kriyasheel macchimar) as per letter-cum-circular
dated 01.09.1989.

10.5.          That members of Petitioner-Society are not belonging to
same families and necessary certificates about residence are already
issued by the concerned Talathi.

10.6.          That in the list of members submitted by Petitioner-Society,
25 members are doing agriculture and fishing both and therefore, they
meet the necessary criteria.

10.7.          That Respondent No. 2 has no locus standi to challenge the
Petitioner’s registration.

10.8.          That some members of proposed Respondent-societies are
common with Respondent No. 2 society and therefore, the objecting
Respondent Nos.1 & 3 are dummy fronts of Respondent No. 2 and they
have not come before the Court with clean hands.

10.9. That the Inspection Report dated 05.09.2014 is not properly
considered. That affidavit submitted before the Commissioner about the
Petitioner-Society having a head office, has not been considered.




Sneha Chavan                                                              7
                                                    WP 1136-2020 C2.doc



10.10.           That even the Respondent proposed societies have tried to
influence the process politically, which is seen from a letter dated
13.12.2013 issued by Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.

10.11.           That as per GR dated 05.12.2013 (clause 1.4), preference
is given to the project-affected-persons like most of the Petitioners'
members.

11.            Mr. Prabhune, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.
1 proposed society submitted as under.

11.1.            That this Court while passing order dated 04.07.2018 has
taken note of the interference by the Minister in the process and has
directed the matter to be considered on merits. That this Court has
already observed that the Authorities had favoured the Petitioner
Society based on written and oral instructions of concerned Minister.

11.2.            That the chronological order in which proposals were
received has been properly considered by the Commissioner while
passing impugned order.

11.3.            That it can be seen from the list of Petitioners' members
that they belong to same family and Talathi of one village cannot issue
certificate about other village residents. That since the occupation of
Petitioner-society’s members are shown as ‘agriculture along with
fishing’, they are not active fishermen (kriyasheel)

11.4.            He relied on section 6 of the said Act to contend that the
conditions of registration are not met factually.

11.5.            He relied on Judgment of this Court dated 24.11.2025 in
Writ Petition No. 11339 of 2025 (Shree Jagrutti Co-operative Housing



Sneha Chavan                                                              8
                                                    WP 1136-2020 C2.doc



Society Ltd. And Anr. v/s Shree Jagruti CHS Society, proposed & Ors.) in
support of his submissions.

12.            Learned counsel Mr. Talkute appearing for Respondent No. 2-
society submitted as under.

12.1.            That the earlier policies under which societies were
registered for the purpose of fishery have undergone change and as on
today, new policy has come into force under GR dated 03.07.2019. That
therefore, the entire challenge in the petition has become infructuous.
He submitted that the Petitioner-society can apply afresh under fresh
norms.

12.2.            That the petition is not even admitted and there are
concurrent findings against the Petitioner without any interim relief and
as such there is no point in considering the matter all over on merits.

12.3.            That the petition is being argued as if it is an appeal and
writ jurisdiction of this Court is not meant for re-appreciating the
evidence. That except the argument about jurisdiction/locus, nothing
really falls for consideration of this Court.

12.4.            Relying on Section 4 of the said Act, he submitted that if
registration of a society is likely to be economically unsound or if the
registration is contrary to the policy directives, then the registration
cannot be justified.

12.5.            Relying on Section 9 of the said Act, he submitted that for
the purpose of registration, the Registrar has to be satisfied that the
proposed society is complying with provisions of the Act and Rules and
therefore, the order of registration is appealable under Section 152 of
the said Act and appeal can be filed by other affected party like


Sneha Chavan                                                              9
                                                    WP 1136-2020 C2.doc



Respondent No. 2. He submitted that the initiation of action under
Section 21A of the said Act, is a consequential order and therefore,
since the Respondent No. 2 is aggrieved by the very registration of
Petitioner- Society, it has locus standi to file appeal.

12.6.          That on 18.09.2014, Regional Deputy Commissioner, Pune
Region, issued letter to the Assistant Commissioner at Sangli, pointing
out the letter issued by State Minister asking to treat Petitioner's
proposal ‘as special case’ and immediately on the next day i.e.
19.09.2014, the NOC was issued and immediately next day thereafter,
on 20.09.2014 a letter was issued permitting opening of bank account.
That this clearly shows political interference. That decision was taken
without hearing the affected party like Respondent No. 2.

12.7.          That finding such political interference, this Court had
interfered earlier and now, impugned order has been passed on merits.
Therefore, no interference is now required.

12.8.          He relied upon the sur-rejoinder filed by Respondent No. 2
in support of his case and also relied upon the following judgments in
support of his case.

(i)     Bhaurao Markad Matshya Vyavasayeek Sahakari Sanstha, through
its Chairman Vs. State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 4583.

(ii)    Kumbhargaon Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Seva Society Ltd. Vs.
Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies and Ors. 1993 (1) Mah. L.J.
178.

(iii)   Subhas Anna Kool v/s Daund Tal. Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh
Maryadit 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 509.

(iv)    Essen Deinki v/s Rajiv Kumar (2002) 8 SCC 400.



Sneha Chavan                                                              10
                                                      WP 1136-2020 C2.doc



13.            Learned counsel Mr. Kulkarni appearing for Respondent No. 3
proposed society, submitted that he is supporting the case of other
Respondents. He submitted that the proposal of Respondent No. 3 was
prior in point of time. He submitted that apart from the fact of political
influence which resulted in registration of Petitioner-Society, it must be
considered that nobody has fundamental right to do business with the
government. He relied on the judgment of State of Rajasthan and
Others v/s Sharwan Kumar Kumawat and Ors. (2023) 20 SCC 747 in
support of this submission.

14.            Learned AGP relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by the
Assistant Registrar (Fisheries and Dairy), Sangli-Miraj on behalf of
Respondent Nos. 4, 7 and 8 and supported the impugned order.

                          REASONS AND CONCLUSION

15.            I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
record.

16.            At the outset, it is necessary to note that in Shree Jagrutti CHS
(Supra), this Court has held that the exercise under Section 9 of the
said Act is not a routine exercise and it requires scrutiny of documents,
verification of financial capacity and examination as to whether new
society would harm the existing co-operative structure. It is held that
principles of natural justice requires that a party affected by decision
must know why the decision has been taken. It is held that registration
of a society affects the rights of those seeking registration and may also
affect existing societies in the area. It is also held that in proceeding
under Section 9, the registering authority must issue a clear and
reasoned order showing facts considered, application of policy
directives and the conclusion reached based on credible evidence. In


Sneha Chavan                                                                11
                                                     WP 1136-2020 C2.doc



view of these observations, it is clear that the Respondent No. 2 (being a
Society in whose favour already the contract was allotted in Morna
Talao for a period of 5 years starting from 2013-14 to 2017-18 with a
clear reference to its name in the NOC issued to Petitioner) was an
affected party and its locus standi cannot be doubted. In that view of
the matter, the appeal filed by Respondent No. 2 was rightly considered
on merits.

17.            From the chronology of events narrated above, it is clear that
when the inspection was carried out and report was issued on
05.09.2014 in respect of Petitioner-Society, the new policy GR dated
26.06.2014 was stayed and therefore the earlier policy was applicable.
In this respect, the learned Commissioner in Paragraph No. (2) of
reasons has considered the relevant dates and effect of stay.

18.            Also from the order of this Court dated 04.07.2018 passed in
earlier round of litigation, it is clear that while granting registration to
Petitioner-society, there was political interference. In the NOC there was
clear reference to direction from the concerned Minister, that
Petitioner's case be considered ‘as special case’. For this reason also, the
registration granted to Petitioner-society was rightly re-considered on
merits by the Deputy Registrar while allowing appeals filed by
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and duly confirmed by the impugned order.

19.            Perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned
Commissioner has considered following aspects.

19.1.             Stay granted to later GR was considered and according to
earlier applicable GR, only one society was permitted considering water
body volume (155 hectors).




Sneha Chavan                                                               12
                                                  WP 1136-2020 C2.doc



19.2.          The Commissioner has considered that when the Petitioner
applied for registration, the proposal was incomplete and the
deficiencies were communicated on 26.12.2013. It is further considered
that the Petitioner submitted proposal after removing deficiencies on
30.12.2013. The Commissioner has considered the chronology of events
in which Petitioner’s proposal was submitted. It is also considered that
by the time other proposals were received, as per applicable policy, then
since Morna talao is less than 200 hector area, only one society was
permitted to be registered.

19.3.          The Commissioner has also considered that Petitioner did
not comply with condition Nos. 4, 10 and 13 of letter dated 20.09.2014
(permitting opening of bank account) but still registration was granted.

19.4.          The Commissioner has also considered that the Petitioner is
not confirming with requirement of the ‘active fishermen’ required. It
was found that 25 members of Petitioner society, of which details were
submitted by filing affidavits, are found to be agriculturalist and
therefore, the applicable policy is found to be not complied.

19.5.          The Commissioner has also considered that the list of
additional members submitted by the Petitioner-society has been found
to be belonging to same family and the certificate given by Talathi office
has been found to be given beyond jurisdiction.

19.6.          The Commissioner has considered the directions by this
Court granted in Writ Petition No. 643 of 2014 by Aurangabad Bench
about opportunity to be granted to existing societies and it is found that
Petitioner-Society was registered without hearing Respondent No. 2
who was the existing society.




Sneha Chavan                                                            13
                                                   WP 1136-2020 C2.doc



19.7.            The Commissioner has found that though Petitioner had
submitted that deficiencies are removed on 30.12.2013, however,
actually no document or explanation was given about removing
deficiencies.

19.8.            The Commissioner has held that the objection about few
members of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 societies being member of
existing Respondent No. 2 - Society can be considered independently
and appropriate action can be taken, however, it is held that such
situation would not ipso facto make the registration of Petitioner-
Society legal.

19.9.            The Commissioner has found that the documents filed on
05.09.2014 does not have necessary details such as inward outward
number or dates; names of members are found to be added later on and
such irregularities were found to be ignored while granting registration.

19.10.           The Commissioner has further found that at the time of
filing application for registration, the Petitioner-Society did not have
any head office address and subsequent effort to file affidavit of alleged
Licensor/landlord would not help the Petitioner.

19.11            By detailed appreciation of evidence on record, the
Commissioner has found that the Deputy Registrar had properly
canceled the registration of Petitioner-Society and the said decision has
been confirmed.

20.            Learned counsel for Petitioner has raised many factual
contentions such as (i) Members of Petitioner-Society being conducting
a particular occupation such as fishing or agriculture, (ii) Morna dam
being dharan talao and therefore multiple societies may be permissible



Sneha Chavan                                                             14
                                                      WP 1136-2020 C2.doc



(iii) Certificates issued by the Talathi of particular village being in
particular distance. These are factual disputes and therefore cannot be
considered in writ jurisdiction.

21.            In any case, writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be exercised
for re-appreciation of evidence. This Court already found that
reconsideration on merits was necessary and therefore matter was
remanded. Two Authorities have concurrently held that the Petitioner-
society was registered illegally and under political influence and by
treating the Petitioner as 'a special case.'

22.            It is not disputed that as on today, the applicable policy for
grant of registration as well as permission for fishing activity has
undergone change in July 2019. There is no interim relief in favour of
the Petitioner. Therefore, consideration about Petitioner's registration in
September 2014 (about 12 years ago) being legal (as asserted by
Petitioner) and the challenge in the petition to the impugned order is
really speaking infructuous.

23.            In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for the reasons
indicated above, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned order.

24.            Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

25.            All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
copy of this order.



                                              (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Sneha Chavan                                                                15