Bombay High Court
VIDYA NAGAR COLONY COOPERATIVE SOCIETY THR. CHAIRMAN, RAVINDRA BARVE AND 15 ORSversusSTATE OF GOA THR. CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed of
Holding
The Court upheld the Tribunal's de-registration order on the basis that the Society was improperly registered as a housing maintenance society, not on any alleged misrepresentation.
Summary
The Vidya Nagar Colony Cooperative Society filed a writ petition challenging the Cooperative Tribunal's order that de-registered it under Section 20 of the Goa Cooperative Societies Act. The Tribunal had held that the Society's registration was invalid because it was not a permissible type of cooperative housing maintenance society under Section 102(1) and Rule 8(7)(d). The petitioners argued that the Tribunal erred in finding misrepresentation, presenting deeds of sale to show legitimate ownership of individual plots. The Court agreed that the primary ground for de-registration was the improper classification of the Society, not any alleged misrepresentation, and therefore did not interfere with the Tribunal's order, though it brushed aside the Tribunal's comments on malafides. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the de-registration order stands.
Issues considered
- Whether a cooperative society comprising owners of individual plots can be registered as a housing maintenance society under the Goa Cooperative Societies Act.
- Whether alleged misrepresentation by the society can constitute a ground for de-registration under Section 20.
- Whether the High Court can set aside the Cooperative Tribunal's order of de-registration.
Legislation cited
- Cooperative Societies Rules — s. Rule 8(7)(d)
- Goa Cooperative Societies Act — s. 102(1), 114A, 19, 20
Subjects
- Cooperative Society
- De-registration
- Misrepresentation
- Housing Maintenance Society
- Registration competency
- Goa Cooperative Societies Act
- Cooperative Tribunal
- Writ Petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:1919
908-wp-319-2023.docx
WRIT PETITION NO.319 OF 2023
VIDYA NAGAR COLONY COOPERATIVE
SOCIETY THR. CHAIRMAN, RAVINDRA
BARVE AND 15 ORS. ... Petitioners.
Versus
STATE OF GOA THR. CHIEF
SECRETARY AND 2 ORS. ... Respondents.
Mr Sudin Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Ms
Tanisha Mashelkar, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Ms Sapna Mordekar, Additional Government
Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr S. S. Kantak, Senior Advocate with Mr. Preetam
Talaulikar, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
CORAM: S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED: 24th September, 2026
ORDER:
1. The Petitioner takes exception to the Order dated
03.06.2022 passed by Co-operative Tribunal, Goa, in Cooperative
Appeal No.41/2022 whereby the application for de-registration of
the Petitioner Society under Section 20 of the Goa Cooperative
Societies Act has been granted.
2. The Petitioner Society was registered under the provisions of
Page 1 of 4
24th September, 2026
908-wp-319-2023.docx
the Goa Cooperative Societies Act under Registration Code Symbol
ARCS/NZ/HSG)/506(d)/Goa with effect from 04.01.2021. The
Respondent No.3 challenged the registration of the Society in
Case/Appeal No.16/2021 before the Assistant Registrar of
Cooperative Society, North Goa, under Sections 20 and 19 of the
Goa Cooperative Societies Act. The Respondent No.3 contend that
in order to defeat his tenancy rights, part of the portion in
cultivatory possession is falsely claimed by the Petitioners as open
space and misrepresented before the Authorities by filing an
application for registration of the Society and obtained Certificate
of Registration dated 04.12. 2021. The Assistant Registrar, after
hearing parties, rejected the claim of Respondent No.3 vide
Judgment and Order dated 19.11.2021.
3. Respondent No.3, being aggrieved by order of the Assistant
Registrar, filed Cooperative Appeal No.41/2022 before Cooperative
Tribunal, Goa, under Section 114A of Goa Cooperative Societies Act.
The Tribunal allowed Appeal and granted the application of
Respondent No.3 for de-registration and cancellation of the Society
under Section 19 of the Act and further issued directions to
Assistant Registrar to cancel registration within a period of 45 days.
Hence, this Writ Petition.
4. Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Learned Senior Advocate, would
submit that the Tribunal has erroneously observed that the
Petitioner Society obtained registration by misrepresentation. By
inviting attention of this Court to individual Deeds of Sale executed
by original owners in favour of the members of the Society
Page 2 of 4
24th September, 2026
908-wp-319-2023.docx
submitted that the plots along with open space and the roads, were
sold to the members of the Society. Respondent No.3 has claimed
his tenancy right over the open space. His proceedings are pending
before the Tenancy Authority. In this backdrop, the Petitioner
Society could not have been put in dock with allegation of
misrepresentation. Per contra, Mr. S. S. Kantak, Learned Senior
Advocate appearing for Respondent No.3 and Ms. Sapna Mordekar,
Learned Additional Government Advocate, supports the impugned
Order.
5. Perusal of the impugned Order would show that the prime
ground for de-registration of the Society was not the alleged
misrepresentation but incompetency of registration of the Society
of individual plot owners under Section 102(1) of Goa Cooperative
Societies Act and Rule 8, Sub-clause 7(d) of Cooperative Rules.
6. Undisputedly, the members of the Petitioner Society have
individual plots purchased from the original landowner. They have
constructed their houses on respective plots. However, they
applied for registration of the Cooperative Housing Maintenance
Society in terms of Rule 8, sub-clause 7(d) of the Cooperative
Societies Act. The sub-classification of such Society is elaborated
as a Society formed by the owners of dwelling units or commercial
units in a building for the purpose of maintenance of the building
and provisions of common amenities. Apparently, the Petitioner
could not have been registered as Cooperative Housing
Maintenance Society since it consists of members having
independent plots and individual constructions. The Maintenance
Page 3 of 4
24th September, 2026
908-wp-319-2023.docx
Society could be formed by owners of dwelling units or commercial
units in a building for purpose of maintenance of building. In this
backdrop, the Tribunal is justified in observing that the registration
of the Society was faulty.
7. In this backdrop, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the
impugned Order. However, the observations attributing malafides
or misrepresentation against Petitioner Society in the impugned
Order were uncalled for and they shall be treated to be brushed
aside.
8. The Writ Petition stands dismissed in aforesaid terms.
Page 4 of 4
Signed by: MARIA SUZANA REBELLO
24th September, 2026
Designation: Personal Assistant
Date: 28/09/2026 17:02:50
Checking your session…