RUBY ISLE CO-OP HSG SOCIETY LTD THROU. VED PRAKASH MISHRAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

                                                                        48-WP-17281-25-final.doc



                                                                                    Sayali


SAYALI                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
DEEPAK                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
UPASANI
Digitally signed by
SAYALI DEEPAK
UPASANI
                                      WRIT PETITION NO.17281 OF 2025
Date: 2026.02.17
19:34:27 +0530



                      Ruby Isle Cooperative Housing Society
                      Ltd                                          … Petitioner
                                 V/s.
                      State of Maharashtra and Others              … Respondents

                      Mr. Jagannath Pawar, for Petitioner.
                      Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Additional GP with Ms. G. R.
                      Raghuwanshi, AGP for Respondent no. 1.
                      Mr. Abhilash Panickar, for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.


                                                  CORAM      : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                  DATED      : FEBRUARY 17, 2026

                      P.C.:

                      1.      The present petition, instituted at the instance of the Co-
                      operative Housing Society, assails the order passed by the Deputy
                      Registrar in exercise of powers under Section 154B-27 of the
                      Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. By the impugned order,
                      the Deputy Registrar has directed the petitioner-society to delete
                      the penal charges reflected in its account extract, placing reliance
                      upon his earlier order dated 18 October 2019 as well as the
                      judgment of this Court in Kiran K. Sharma and Another vs. Laxmi
                      Estate Co-operative Housing Society in Writ Petition No. 3479 of


                                                        1
                                                48-WP-17281-25-final.doc


2023 decided on 25 January 2024.

2.    Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
the authority conferred upon the Deputy Registrar under Section
154B-27 is in the nature of an execution or enforcement power
and does not extend to adjudication of inter se rights and
liabilities of parties. The petitioner further submits that the
society has adjusted the liability of respondent Nos. 3 and 4
towards future maintenance charges.

3.    On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3
and 4 relies upon the order dated 19 October 2019 whereby the
society was directed to delete charges levied on the ground of
alleged encroachment. It is contended that the society acted upon
the said order and removed the corresponding entries from its
account extract. However, in the year 2025 the society again
imposed identical charges. The impugned order, according to the
respondents, merely enforces compliance with the earlier order
dated 18 October 2019 and therefore falls squarely within the
jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar.

4.    After hearing both sides and examining the material placed
on record, the position becomes clear. The fresh demand raised
by the society was not confined to the earlier amount. It
contained two separate components. The first was the earlier
encroachment charge of Rs. 78,750 along with interest. The
second was a further amount of Rs. 4,15,800 which the society
claimed for the period from 01 May 2019 to 31 March 2025 on



                                 2
                                                  48-WP-17281-25-final.doc


the allegation that the violation continued. Thus, what was
sought to be recovered was partly the subject matter of the
earlier order and partly a new claim founded on alleged
continuing default.

5.    Even if one proceeds on the footing that the Deputy
Registrar intended only to secure compliance of his earlier order
dated 18 October 2019, the jurisdiction could extend only to that
limited extent. The earlier order concerned the charges already
imposed at that time. The additional liability created for the
subsequent period from 01 May 2019 to 31 March 2025 stands
on a different footing. That claim required examination of facts,
determination whether encroachment actually continued, and
consideration whether the society was entitled to levy such
charges. Such an exercise necessarily involves adjudication of
rights and cannot be treated as mere enforcement of a prior
direction. Therefore, there was no justification for the authority
to deal with the amount of Rs. 4,15,800 in proceedings under
Section 154B-27.

6.    A reading of paragraph 4 of the impugned order shows that
the Registrar went into the merits of the dispute. By relying upon
the decision of this Court in the case of Kiran K. Sharma, the
authority assessed whether the levy of charges itself was proper.
This was not a simple direction to follow an existing order. It
amounted to examining the legality and validity of the demand
and thereby deciding the liability between the parties.




                                 3
                                                  48-WP-17281-25-final.doc


7.    In these circumstances, the authority exercised a power
which the statute does not confer under Section 154B-27. The
provision enables implementation of an existing order. It does not
authorise determination of a fresh dispute regarding the
correctness of charges. Consequently, the impugned order dated
08 October 2025 cannot be sustained and is quashed and set
aside. However, the society shall refund the amount covered by
the order dated 18 October 2019 together with interest.

8.    At the same time, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are not left
without remedy. They are at liberty to adopt appropriate
proceedings permissible in law to question the validity and
justification of the encroachment charges in the light of the
decision in Kiran K. Sharma. If such proceedings are initiated or if
defense to that effect is raised, the competent authority or court
shall consider the matter independently on its own merits and
shall not be influenced by any observations contained either in
the order of the Registrar or in the present judgment.

9.    The Petition is disposed of.

                                            (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                 4