Bombay High Court

GANESH KRISHNAJI VAZEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Decided: 7 July 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: SANDEEP V MARNE

Holding

The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to seek revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act and maintaining the interim stay order.

Summary

The petitioner challenged the de‑registration of a cooperative society, contending that the number of genuine signatures on the registration proposal satisfied the statutory requirement. The High Court observed that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing a revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act against the order dated 24 December 2025. It noted that even after excluding three forged signatures, the society still met the 48‑person threshold under Section 154B‑2. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to pursue the revision remedy and continued the interim stay order of 6 April 2026 throughout the revision proceedings. All substantive contentions were left open and the writ petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate remedy for the petitioner to challenge the de‑registration order?
Does the presence of forged signatures affect the compliance with Section 154B‑2 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act?
Should the interim stay order remain in force pending the outcome of a revision petition?

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 154, 154B-2, 21A

Subjects

revision
de‑registration
forgery
cooperative societies
interim stay
writ petition

Judgment

Vaishnavi                                               28-WP-4201-2026


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                      WRIT PETITION NO. 4201 OF 2026

Ganesh Krishnaji Vaze                                  ...Petitioner

                     V/s.

State Of Maharashtra and Ors.                         ...Respondents
                                ________________
Mr. P.G. Sabnis i/by Mr. J.B. Apte, for Petitioner.
Ms. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Ronak K. Parekh with Ms. Devanshi Jain i/by Mr. Munish Ali Hemani,
for Respondent Nos. 4 & 6.
                                ________________


                                          CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                           DATED: 07 July 2026


P.C.:


1)          The Petitioner has an alternate and equally ef?cacious remedy of
?lling revision under Section 154 the Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960, (MCS) challenging the order dated 24 December 2025
passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. It appears that, by order dated 6
April 2026, this Court has stayed the operation of the order dated 24
December 2025.


2)          Prima facie, it appears that the number of units sold at the
relevant time were 88 and number of persons required for registration of


                                   Page No.1 of 2
                                    07 July 2026
Vaishnavi                                                  28-WP-4201-2026


Society under Section 154B-2 of the MCS Act was 48. The application
was apparently signed by 82 purchasers.


3)          When the application seeking de-registration of the Society
under Section 21A of the Act was preferred, there was no allegation of
forgery raised by the Respondent-developer. However, during pendency
of de-registration proceedings, 12 persons ?led af?davits claiming that
their signatures on the proposal were forged. Out of those 12 persons,
signatures of 10 persons were sent to a private forensic agency, which
has apparently opined that 3 signatures are forged, 1 signature is
unconclusive and 6 signatures are genuine.


4)          Prima facie, therefore, even if names of 3 persons are deleted
from the proposal, still it would satisfy the requirement under Section
154B-2 of the MCS Act. Therefore, while relegating the Petitioner to a
remedy under Section 154 of the MCS Act, it would be necessary to
continue the interim order granted by this Court on 6 April 2026.


5)          The Petitioner would be at liberty to prefer revision against order
dated 24 December 2025. If such revision is lodged within a period of 3
weeks from today, order dated 6 April 2026 shall continue to operate
throughout the pendency of the revision and for a period of 2 weeks in
case the revision goes against the Petitioner.


6)          All contentions of parties of merits are expressly kept open. Writ
Petition is accordingly disposed of.



                                                      [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

                                     Page No.2 of 2
                                      07 July 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…