Bombay High Court

JAYASHRI ANNASAHEB KHOTversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. THE SECRETARY DEPT. OF CO-OPERATION AND TEXTILE AND ORS.

Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The Minister's decision is a permissible view and the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

Jayashri Annasaheb Khot, a member of a cooperative society, sought inspection of documents relating to the society's transactions. The Assistant Registrar allowed the request, but the Divisional Joint Registrar dismissed a subsequent revision, leading the society to obtain a ministerial order that quashed the earlier orders while refusing vouchers and expenditure bills from Jan 2018 to Mar 2023. The petitioner challenged this ministerial order by filing a writ petition, arguing that Section 32 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960, entitles her to those documents. The court examined whether the minister had exceeded jurisdiction and whether the member’s right under the Act covered the withheld documents. It held that the minister’s view was a permissible interpretation and did not warrant interference. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with the court noting that the petitioner may still seek information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Issues considered

Whether the Minister erred in refusing to direct the cooperative society to provide vouchers and expenditure bills under Section 32 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960.
Whether the Minister had jurisdiction to quash the orders of the Assistant Registrar and Divisional Joint Registrar.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Cooperative society
Member rights
Section 32
Right to Information Act
Ministerial order
Writ petition
Jurisdiction

Judgment

                       1                           87-WP-4930-2026 (C)

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                WRIT PETITION NO. 4930 OF 2026

Jayashri Annasaheb Khot                            …...Petitioner
      Vs.
The State Of Maharashtra,
Through The Secretary Dept. Of Co-operation
And Textile & Ors.                                 …...Respondents

                                 ...
Mr. D. V. Sutar, with Ms. Reshma J Adnaik and Mr. Ketan Patil,
Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent-State.
                                 ...

                  CORAM :      SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                    DATE :     5TH OCTOBER, 2026.

ORDER :


.     Heard Mr. D. V. Sutar, learned advocate for the Petitioner.


2.    The Petitioner is questioning the order dated 11.08.2023

passed by the learned Minister, allowing the revision and quashing

the orders passed by the Assistant Registrar and the Divisional Joint

Registrar.


3.    The Petitioner is a member of Respondent No. 4-Society, from

whom he solicited information. The Application was allowed by the

Assistant Registrar. Being aggrieved thereby, a revision was preferred
                       2                            87-WP-4930-2026 (C)

before the Divisional Joint Registrar, which was dismissed. Against

that order, the Respondent-Society preferred a revision before the

learned Minister, which was allowed by the impugned order.


4.    Learned    counsel   for   the   Petitioner   submits    that   the

information/documents which are withheld are squarely covered by

Section 32. It is submitted that the Petitioner is an investor and the

Respondent-Society entered into transactions involving investments

of the Petitioner and others. In this manner, the transaction can be

said to be impliedly between the Petitioner and the Society.


5.    The error of jurisdiction is stated to have been committed in

the impugned order. The Petitioner is a member of Respondent No.

4-Society, who had solicited various documents, which were allowed

by the authorities below. The learned Minister, by the impugned

order, also endorses that she is entitled to receive the documents, but

not in respect of vouchers and expenditure bills from January 2018

to March 2023, which would fall outside the purview of Section 32

of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.


5.    The member who is the information seeker is entitled to have

inspection of, or obtain, documents in respect of the transactions
                         3                           87-WP-4930-2026 (C)

entered into with the Society. The claim of the Petitioner that the

Society entered into transactions with third parties and that, being

an investor, she is entitled to have vouchers or expenditure bills is

far-fetched. The view taken by the learned Minister cannot be

faulted. There is no record to show that the documents solicited are

in respect of any direct transaction between the Petitioner and

Respondent No. 4-Society. It would always be open for the parties to

solicit documents as is permissible in law, especially under the Right

to Information Act, 2005.


6.       I find that the view taken by the learned Minister is a possible

view and needs no interference. The Writ Petition is dismissed.

However, it is clarified that the Petitioner will have the liberty to take

recourse to the Right to Information Act for soliciting information as

is permissible in law.




                                  [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]


Suresh

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…