Bombay High Court

MAHESH CHAUMAL AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SECRETARY AND ORS

Decided: 3 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable where an alternative revision remedy exists, and therefore stayed the order appointing the Authorised Officer.

Summary

The petitioners, Mahesh Chaumal and another, challenged an order dated 31 August 2026 by the Deputy Registrar appointing an Authorised Officer over their cooperative society under Section 77A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. They feared the appointment would lead to the society’s bank accounts being frozen, which had already occurred. The petition raised a procedural issue regarding the quorum of the Managing Committee, noting that three reserved‑category members could not be counted for quorum under Section 154‑B(22) of the Act, but the committee still met the required number. The Court observed that an alternative remedy of filing a revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar existed and therefore declined to entertain the writ. It granted a stay on the impugned order, directed that the bank freeze be lifted, and allowed the petitioners liberty to file an appeal, ordering the Divisional Joint Registrar to decide the stay application within six weeks. The writ petition was consequently disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the order appointing an Authorised Officer under Section 77A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is maintainable before this Court.
Whether the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing a revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar.
Whether the Managing Committee met the quorum requirement under Section 154‑B(22) of the Act.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 154-B(22), 77A

Subjects

Co-operative Societies
Authorised Officer
Quorum
Stay of order
Bank account freeze
Writ petition
Revision remedy
Interim relief

Judgment

Neeta Sawant 501-Writ Petition No.11815-2026.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11815 OF 2026

Mahesh Chaumal & Anr. …..Petitioners
: Versus :
The State of Maharashtra, through
the Secretary & Ors. ….Respondents

Mr. Karl Tamboly with Mr. Savish Shetye, Mr. Karan Singh, Mr. Krish Shah
i/b. Jenil N. Shah, for the Petitioners.
Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for State.

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 3 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C :

1) The petition challenges order dated 31 August 2026 passed
by the Deputy Registrar appointing Authorised Officer over the Society
under the provisions of Section 77A of the Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960 (the Act).

2) There is an alternate remedy of filing Revision against the
impugned order before the Divisional Joint Registrar against the order
dated 31 August 2026. However, the present petition is filed expressing
an apprehension that the Authorised Officer would take over the charge
of the society. My attention is invited to the letter of the bank of the
Petitioner-society freezing the accounts of the Society based on
impugned order dated 31 August 2026.

_____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 1 of 2
Thursday, 3 September 2026
Neeta Sawant 501-Writ Petition No.11815-2026.docx

3) Prima-facie, it appears that for 123 members, the strength
of Managing Committee is 13 out of which 3 posts are for reserved
category. Since 3 reserved category members are not elected on the
Committee, under the provisions of Section 154-B(22) of the Act they
cannot be computed for the purpose of determining the quorum. Thus,
for the strength of Managing Committee of 10 members, the requisite
quorum would be 6.66 which can be rounded off to 7. It appears that
there were 7 members on the Managing Committee who co-opted the
eighth member in December 2025. However, subsequently in February
2026, the Chairman came to be disqualified. Thus, the Managing
Committee still has 7 members to fulfill the requisite quorum.

4) Since there is an alternate remedy of filing Appeal against
the order, I am not inclined to entertain the petition. The Writ Petition
is accordingly disposed of granting liberty to the Petitioner to file Appeal
against the order dated 31 August 2026 before the Divisional Joint
Registrar. In order to enable the Petitioner to seek interim relief before
the Divisional Joint Registrar, the impugned order dated 31 August 2026
shall not be implemented till the disposal of the application for stay. The
Divisional Joint Registrar shall make an endeavour to decide the
application for stay within a period of 6 weeks. All contentions of the
parties are left open.

5) Since the impugned order is being stayed, the freeze imposed
on Society’s bank Account shall be lifted forthwith. Needless to observe
that the Appeal shall be decided without being influenced by
observations made in the order. The Writ Petition is accordingly
disposed of.

Digitally
signed by
NEETA
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.09.03
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
20:41:13
+0530 _____________________________________________________________________________
PAGE NOS. 2 of 2
Thursday, 3 September 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…