Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SIDDIQ ABU MOHAMMADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU REGISTRAR AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as an alternative remedy is pending and the matters involve factual disputes beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction.

Summary

The petitioner, Siddiq Abu Mohammad, challenged an order of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies dated 01.08.2025, which under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 declared a debt of Rs. 4,89,214 payable to Indra Co-operative Credit Society. He alleged cheating by other respondents and sought relief through a writ petition. However, the petitioner had already filed a revision application before the Joint Divisional Deputy Registrar, Mumbai, which was pending. The High Court held that the existence of an alternative remedy barred the writ petition and that the petition raised factual disputes unsuitable for writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition and the accompanying interim application were dismissed.

Issues considered

  • The appropriateness of entertaining a writ petition when a revision application is pending before a higher authority.
  • Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition that involves disputed questions of fact.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • writ jurisdiction
  • alternative remedy
  • revision application
  • cooperative societies
  • Section 101
  • factual dispute

Judgment

          Digitally
          signed by
          RUSHIKESH
RUSHIKESH VISHNU
VISHNU    PATIL
PATIL     Date:
          2026.10.01
          11:55:25                                   1/2                5 IA.7591.2026.odt
          +0530



                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 12784 OF 2026
                                                       WITH
                                      INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7591 OF 2026
                                                       IN
                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 12784 OF 2026

                       Siddiq Abu Mohammad                       .. Petitioner/ Applicant
                                           Versus
                       The State of Maharashtra, Thru
                       Registrar & Ors.               .. Respondents
                                                           …
                       Ms Ratna Jaiswal, for the Applicant.
                       Mr. Ketan Joshi, ‘B’ Panel Counsel, for the Respondent-State.
                                                           ...
                                             CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
                                                    ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
                                             DATE   : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026


                       P.C:-

                       1.          The Petitioner before us is a borrower who raised a

                       challenge to an order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-

                       operative Societies, on 01.08.2025, in exercise of power under

                       Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,

                       1960, declaring that an amount of Rs. 4,89,214/- (Rupees Four

                       Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Fourteen only)

                       is due and payable to Indra Co-operative Credit Society

                       Limited, i.e. Respondent No. 4, by the Petitioner, who is shown


                       Rushikesh
                                 2/2                 5 IA.7591.2026.odt

as the borrower, alongwith the two guarantors.


            Though the Petitioner has set out a case that he has been

cheated by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 with the help of

Respondent No. 3, and certain facts are placed before us, we

noted that on 23.06.2026, the Petitioner approached the

learned Single Judge and sought withdrawal of the petition

with liberty to file an appeal/revision against the Recovery

Certificate. Even the Writ Petition contains a statement to the

effect that a revision application has been filed before the Joint

Divisional Deputy Registrar, Mumbai, and the same is pending.


2.          We, therefore, refuse to entertain the Writ Petition on

both counts, namely, first, that an alternative remedy is

already invoked and the revision application is pending before

the Divisional Authority and, secondly, on the count that the

Writ Petition involves various disputed questions of fact which

we are not entitled to look into in exercise of our writ

jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed.


            In the wake of dismissal of the Writ Petition, the Interim

Application also stands disposed of.




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

Rushikesh


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.