DHANANJAY BHASKAR RANEversusMATHURA BHAVAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. THROUGH ITS SECRETARY/ CHAIRMAN

                                                                   35 wp 4467 of 2026.doc

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                   WRIT PETITION NO.4467 OF 2026
                               WITH
                INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5466 OF 2026

Dhananjay Bhaskar Rane                             ...         Petitioner/Applicant
     versus
Mathura Bhavan Co-op. Hsg.Soc. Ltd.
and Ors.                                           …           Respondents

Mr. Ashutosh Tripathi with Ms. Jyoti Agrahari i/by Legal Point, for Petitioner.
Ms. Anima Mishra with Mr. Anuj Singh, Ms. Ritu Singh, Mr. Kuldeep
Shekhawat i/by Dhaara Legal, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Mohit Jadhav, Addl. Govt.Pleader, for State.

                  CORAM:       N.J.JAMADAR, J.

                  DATE :       6 OCTOBER 2026

ORDER :

1.    Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2.    This Petition assails the legality, propriety and correctness of a

judgment and order dated 26 November 2025 passed by the Divisional Joint

Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai in Appeal Nos.90 of 2025 and 91

of 2025, whereby the appeals preferred by Respondent No.2, the former

Secretary of Respondent No.1 Society, came to be allowed by setting aside

the order dated 13 March 2025 passed by the Assistant Registrar removing

members     of the Committee of Respondent No.1 Society under Section

78A(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and, the

subsequent order dated 17 March 2025, appointing an Authorized Officer to


SSP                                                      1/4
                                                             35 wp 4467 of 2026.doc

manage the affairs of the Society under Section 77A(1)(b-1) of the Act.

3.    The Petitioner is one of the members of the Respondent No.1 Society.

On the complaint lodged by Respondent No.3, the Assistant Registrar was

persuaded to initiate an action under Section 78A of the Act, 1960.       Finding

that the committee of Respondent No.1 Society, was managing the affairs of

the Society in disobedience of an order passed by this Court in WP(L)

No.1883 of 2019 dated 16 September 2019, thereby restraining the then

Managing Committee of the Society from taking any major decisions, the

Assistant Registrar removed the members of the committee of Respondent

No.1 society under Section 77A (1)(b) of the Act, 1960.           Consequently,

holding that there was a stalemate in the management of the affairs of

Respondent No.1 Society, the Assistant Registrar in exercise of his powers

under Section 77A(1)(b-1), appointed a retired Government Auditor as an

Authorized Officer to manage the affairs of the Society.

4.    In the appeals, the Divisional Joint Registrar was persuaded to interfere

with the order passed by the Assistant Registrar.

5.    Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, despite the order

passed by this Court on 16 September 2019 in WP(L) No.1883 of 2019, the

then managing committee of the society has taken policy decisions and had

indulged in various acts of commission and omission. Thus, the Divisional

Joint Registrar was clearly in error in interfering with the well reasoned order


SSP                                                  2/4
                                                             35 wp 4467 of 2026.doc

passed by the Assistant Registrar.

6.    The aforesaid submission does not merit countenance. A bare perusal

of the orders passed by the Assistant Registrar indicates that the respective

orders were passed in breach of express statutory provisions. Before passing

of an order under Section 78A, the Registrar is enjoined to have an effective

and meaningful consultation with the federal society to which the society

concerned is affiliated.   Evidently, the Assistant Registrar had not at all

consulted the federal society. Thus, the first order dated 13 March 2025 was

not passed in observance of the statutory requirement.

7.    The consequent order of appointment of an Authorized Officer under

Section 77A(1)(b-1) of the Act, 1960, was also passed without scrupulous

compliance of the proviso to the sub-section (1) which mandates the

publishing of a notice on the notice board at the head office of the society

inviting objections and suggestions with respect to the proposed order and

after consideration of all the objections and suggestions received by the

Registrar.   Nor the Assistant Registrar had recorded adequate reasons to

justify the immediate action or to demonstrate that it was not reasonably

practicable to publish such notice, as provided under the second proviso to

sub-section (1) of Section 77A.

8.    In view of the aforesaid legal infirmities in the orders passed by the

Assistant Registrar, the Divisional Joint Registrar was well within his rights in


SSP                                                   3/4
                                                                                  35 wp 4467 of 2026.doc

                       correcting the manifest errors committed by the Assistant Registrar. Thus, in

                       exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, no interference is warranted with the

                       impugned order.

                       9.    Resultantly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.

                       10.   In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, IA No.5466 of 2026 also

                       stands disposed.




                                                                         ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )




          Digitally
          signed by
          SWAROOP
SWAROOP   SHARAD
SHARAD    PHADKE
PHADKE    Date:
          2026.10.07
          19:55:40
          +0530




                       SSP                                                  4/4