Bombay High Court

PRAVINKUMAR BANSILALAL NAHATHAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY COOPETION MARKETING ANDORS AND ORS

Decided: 21 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The notice complies with Rule 57A of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Rules, 1961 and the petitioner is not prejudiced; therefore the challenge fails.

Summary

The petition, filed by the wife of Pravinkumar B. Nahata who is the Sabhapati of the Maharashtra State Co‑operative Marketing Federation, challenged a notice dated 11‑09‑2026 convening a special meeting to consider a motion of no‑confidence against him. The petitioner argued that the notice, served to his wife, violated Rule 57A(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Rules, 1961 and deprived him of a fair chance to defend himself. The State contended that the notice complied with the statutory requirements and that the petitioner could authorize another member to represent him. The Court examined the provisions of Rule 57A, noting that the notice included all mandated particulars and was also served to the officer concerned, allowing defence through a representative. Finding no prejudice to the petitioner and that procedural compliance was satisfied, the Court dismissed the writ petition. The rule was discharged without any interference.

Issues considered

Whether the notice issued under Rule 57A of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Rules, 1961 is valid despite being served to the petitioner’s wife.
Whether the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity to present his defence, resulting in prejudice.
Whether the High Court can intervene in the internal affairs of a co‑operative society under its writ jurisdiction.

Legislation cited

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 3(5)
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 73-ID
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 — s. Rule 57A

Subjects

no‑confidence motion
co‑operative society
notice validity
procedural compliance
writ jurisdiction
prejudice
criminal prosecution

Judgment

SMITA Digitally signed by
SMITA JOHNSON
JOHNSON GONSALVES
Date: 2026.09.23
GONSALVES 16:02:57 +0530

sg 8.wp(c)12519-26.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12519 OF 2026

Pravinkumar Bansilal Nahata
Age: 57 years, Occ: Agri. & Business,
R/o. Loni Venkanath, Tq. Shirgonda,
Dist. Ahilyanagar,
(Since in Jail through his wife)
Manisha w/o. Pravinkumar Nahata
Age: 54, Occ: Household,
R/o. A-603, Akshay Garden,
Sambhaji Nagar, Dhankawadi, Pune … Petitioner

versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary Co-operation,
Marketing and Textiles Department,
Maharashtra State,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.

2. The Directorate of Marketing
Maharashtra State, Pune
Having office at:
3rd Floor, New Central Building,
Ambedkar Wellesley Road,
Pune 411001.

3. Prakash Laxman Jagtap
District Deputy Registrar &
Presiding Officer
Having office at:
Ground Floor, Sahkar Sankool,
NT Wadi, Bus Depo, Shivaji Nagar,

Page 1 of 7
__________________________________________________

21st September, 2026
sg 8.wp(c)12519-26.docx

Pune 411005

(Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader
High Court of Judicature of Bombay) … Respondents
----
Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil, a/w. Ms. Rupsee Nerlikar, Ms. Aakanksha
Jamadar and Mr. Shivkumar S. Jagwad, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Karan S. Thorat, “B” Panel Counsel, for the Respondent/State.
----
CORAM:BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE: 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026
JUDGMENT (Per Ashish S. Chavan, J.):

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of both

parties and taken up for final disposal. Learned AGP waives service of

notice on behalf of the Respondent/State.

2. The petition is filed on behalf of the wife of the Petitioner who

being the ‘Sabhapati’ of the Maharashtra State Co-operative

Marketing Federation Limited, is aggrieved by a notice dated

11.09.2026 issued by Respondent No.2- Director of Marketing under

Section 73-ID of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960

and Rule 57A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961.

Page 2 of 7
__________________________________________________

21st September, 2026
sg 8.wp(c)12519-26.docx

3. The contention of the Petitioner is that since 12.04.2022, he is

the Sabhapati of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing

Federation Limited, an apex federal body duly registered under the

provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules

framed therein. The Petitioner is facing a criminal prosecution for

offences punishable under Section 3(5), 316(2), 316(5) and 318(4) of

the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 vide FIR No. 78 of 2025.

Admittedly, the Petitioner is presently lodged in Yerwada Central

Prison, Pune, in connection with the aforesaid criminal prosecution.

On 08.09.2026, a requisition was made to call a special meeting of the

committee for consideration of the motion of no-confidence against

the Petitioner in terms of MCS Rules, 1961. On 11.09.2026, the

Directorate of Marketing Maharashtra State, Pune, issued a notice

convening the special meeting on 21.09.2026. The agenda of the said

meeting was to move a motion of no-confidence against the Petitioner.

It is this notice that is sought to be impugned by the Petitioner.

4. Heard Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil, learned Counsel for the

Petitioner and Mr. Karan S. Thorat, “B” Panel Counsel, for the

Respondent/State.

Page 3 of 7
__________________________________________________

21st September, 2026
sg 8.wp(c)12519-26.docx

5. Learned Counsel Mr. Gaware Patil on behalf of the Petitioner

has invited our attention to the notice dated 11.09.2026 contending

that the said notice was served on 12.09.2026 at the residence of the

Petitioner, upon his wife and not upon the Petitioner personally. It is

also contended that the Petitioner has not been furnished with the

grounds of the no-confidence motion. The grievance on behalf of the

Petitioner is also that the notice is in breach of the mandatory

provision of Rule 57A(2)(b) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies

Rules, 1961 (“MCS Rules, 1961”), and hence, must be quashed and

set aside. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would also contend that

the Petitioner was deprived of an effective opportunity to present his

case before the special meeting and this has caused grave prejudice to

him.

6. Countering these submissions, learned AGP argued that the

impugned notice dated 11.09.2026 issued by Respondent No.2 is in

consonance with the requirements of Rule 57A of MCS Rules, 1961,

and hence the Petitioner is not prejudiced by the said notice.

Moreover, the Petitioner is at liberty to authorise any other member

on his behalf to defend him against the no-confidence motion. The

Page 4 of 7
__________________________________________________

21st September, 2026
sg 8.wp(c)12519-26.docx

Petitioner has not made out any prejudice caused to him by way of the

impugned notice and contended that this is not a fit case for

interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction.

7. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be apposite to

reproduce extract of Rule 57A of MCS Rules, 1961, which reads

thus:

“57A. Motion of no-confidence against the officers of the
society.—

57A(1)(b) Issue notice within 7 days from the date of
receipt of the requisition, convening the special meeting for
that purpose specifying therein place, date, time, name and
designation of the officer who shall be presiding over such
meeting, to all the members of the Committee, the
Presiding Officer and the Managing Director, General
Manager, Manager, paid Secretary, Group Secretary or such
employee of the society, to whom the Registrar has directed
to produce minute book of Committee meetings of the
society. This notice of no-confidence, shall also be issued, to
the officer or officers against whom the motion of no-
confidence is being moved and shall be accompanied by the
copy of the requisition along with enclosures and agenda,

(emphasis supplied)

(7)(h)(II) Allow the member against whom no-confidence
motion is moved or any other member on his behalf to
defend.”

8. As can be seen from the scheme of Section 57A, it deals

primarily with the motion of no-confidence against officers of the

Page 5 of 7
__________________________________________________

21st September, 2026
sg 8.wp(c)12519-26.docx

Society and the procedure to be followed therein. Sub-rule 1 deals

with the requisition to call a special meeting of the committee of the

society to consider a motion of no-confidence against the President,

Vice-President, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer or

other Officer of the Society by whatever designation called, who is an

elected office bearer. Sub-rule 2 provides for the procedure of

conducting the special meeting. Sub-rule 2(b) provides that the notice

of no-confidence is also to be issued to the officer or officers against

whom such motion is being moved and shall be accompanied by the

copy of the requisition along with enclosures and agenda. Sub-rule

7(h)(ii) contemplates that the member, against whom the no-

confidence motion is moved, can himself or through any other

member on his behalf defend against the no-confidence motion.

9. A perusal of the impugned notice dated 11.09.2026 relied upon

by the Petitioner clearly shows that the said notice is a requisition as

contemplated under Rule 57A(2). It is accompanied by a copy of the

no-confidence motion along with the requisition moved by the

members who have sought the motion of no-confidence as

contemplated by Form M-18 reflected in Rule 57A(1). Considering

Page 6 of 7
__________________________________________________

21st September, 2026
sg 8.wp(c)12519-26.docx

the principal grievance of the Petitioner that he is prejudiced by the

impugned notice, we are of the opinion that the impugned notice is in

consonance with Rule 57A of the MCS Rules. It is accompanied by

the annexures in consonance with Rule 57A (2)(b). Admittedly, the

impugned notice, along with its annexures, has been accepted the wife

of the Petitioner on his behalf and he is aware of the same. The

Petitioner is also at liberty to authorise any other member on his

behalf to defend against the no-confidence motion in terms of Rule

57A(7)(h)(ii). Thus, in our opinion, the Petitioner has failed to

demonstrate any prejudice likely to be caused to him which would

deprive him of a reasonable and effective opportunity to present his

case before the special meeting and contest the no-confidence motion

against him. The impugned notice does not warrant any interference

by this Court. Consequently, the challenge to the impugned notice

fails. Writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

(ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

Page 7 of 7
__________________________________________________

21st September, 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.