DATTAKRUPA MAHILA MATSYA VYAVSAYIK SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADITversusTHE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CO OP. SOC. DAIRY PUNE AND ORS

                      Sonali Mane                                                28-WP-12238-2026.docx



                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                            WRIT PETITION NO. 12238 OF 2026


                      Dattakrupa Mahila Matsya
                      Vyavsayik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit                        … Petitioner
                               Versus

                      The Assistant Registrar Co Op.

                      Societies (Dairy) Pune And Ors.                            … Respondents



                      Mr. Gaurav D. Kakade a/w Mr. Alpesh Vegad, Mr. Pradip Naik, Mr. Suraj
                      Daundkar for Petitioner.
                      Mr. A. C. Bhadang, AGP for Respondents-State.



                                                         CORAM        : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                                         DATE         : 16 SEPTEMBER 2026.

                      P.C. :



                      1)            The Petition challenges Order dated 1 September 2026 passed
                      by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Dairy) Pune, by
                      which Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to be admitted as members
                      of the Petitioner-Society.



                      2)            There is an alternate remedy of filing a revision against the
                      Order dated 1 September 2026. In that view of the matter, this Court is
  MANE                not inclined to entertain the present Petition.
  SONALI
  DILIP
Digitally signed by
MANE SONALI DILIP
Date: 2026.09.18
10:49:07 +0530




                                                      ___Page No.1 of 2___
                                                       16 September 2026
Sonali Mane                                                   28-WP-12238-2026.docx



3)            This Court notices a disturbing factor in the present case.
During the course of his submissions, the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner repeatedly alleged that the Officer who has passed
impugned Order dated 1 September 2026 is a relative of Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3. However, it is an admitted position that this objection was
not raised during the course of hearing conducted by Respondent No.1.



4)            More importantly, the allegation is not pleaded in the
Petition. Upon being queried by the Court as to how the allegation is
being orally raised before this Court, the learned counsel submits that
he has been specifically instructed by the president of the Petitioner-
Society to orally raise the objection before this Court. This Court does
not appreciate the conduct on behalf of the Petitioner in leveling wild
and reckless allegations against Respondent No. 1 without even
bothering to plead the same in the Petition. This Court was inclined to
impose costs on the Petitioner while disposing of the Petition.
However, the learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly requests the
Court not to impose costs.



5)            Accordingly, the Petition is disposed of, leaving open the
remedy of filing a revision against Order dated 1 September 2026. All
contentions on merits are expressly kept open.




                                                      [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]




                               ___Page No.2 of 2___
                                16 September 2026