ANIL CHANDRAKANT PARELversusMHARAL SAMUDAYIK SAHAKARI SHETI SANSTHA MARYADIT THROUGH ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND ORS.

Neeta Sawant                                            11-WP-5098-2019.docx


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                        WRIT PETITION NO. 5098 OF 2019


Anil Chandrakant Parel                                    …..Petitioner
           : Versus :
Mharal Samudayik Sahakari
Sheti Sanstha Maryadit, through
its Vice Chairman & Ors.                                  ….Respondents


                        WRIT PETITION NO. 5015 OF 2019


Laxmibai Baban Parel (since decd.)
through Legal Heirs & Ors.                                …..Petitioners
           : Versus :
Mharal Samudayik Sahakari
Sheti Sanstha Maryadit, through
its Vice Chairman & Ors.                                  ….Respondents


Mr. Dilip Bodake with Mr. Shreeniwas Magar and Ms. Shraddha Pawar, for
     the Petitioners.
Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP for State in WP-5098 of 2019.
Ms. S.D. Chipade, AGP for State in WP-5015 of 2019.




                                       CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                       DATED :     10 SEPTEMBER 2026.

_____________________________________________________________________________
                                PAGE NOS. 1 of 4
                             Thursday, 10 September 2026
Neeta Sawant                                                11-WP-5098-2019.docx


P.C :



1)             By these petitions, the Petitioners have challenged order dated 3
November 2018 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai allowing Revision Application
Nos. 92 of 2017 and 93 of 2017 preferred by the First Respondent-
Society and setting aside the order dated 24 July 2017 passed by the
Deputy Registrar. By order dated 24 July 2017, the Deputy Registrar had
allowed the applications preferred by the Petitioners under Section 23(2)
of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) and had
granted membership to             the Petitioners     in respect of the First
Respondent-society.



2)                I have heard Mr. Bodake the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner. Mr.Pagare, the learned counsel who used to represent
Respondent No.1-society submits that an               Administrator has been
appointed on the society. It appears that Mohan A. Sarak, Administrator
of Respondent no.1-society had appeared before this Court and had filed
a detailed Affidavit-in-Reply dated 3 April 2024. However, no counsel
has appeared on behalf of the Administrator. The petitions are pending
since the year 2019 and it is not necessary to await appearance on behalf
of the Administrator of Respondent No.1-society.




3)                Perusal of the findings recorded by the Divisional Joint
Registrar would indicate total perversity. The Divisional Joint Registrar
has recorded a finding that Petitioners had not submitted applications as
per Rule 19A of the MCS Rules, 1961 and that they had merely tendered
_____________________________________________________________________________
                                PAGE NOS. 2 of 4
                             Thursday, 10 September 2026
Neeta Sawant                                                     11-WP-5098-2019.docx


applications for membership by way of inheritance.                      However, the
Deputy Registrar has not recorded any such finding in the order dated
24 July 2017.        The records on the other hand indicates that proper
applications were filed by the Petitioners for seeking membership of the
First Respondent-society.



4)             The Divisional Joint Registrar has thereafter recorded a
finding that Petitioners did not produce any concrete evidence of
membership. However, Petitioners have already been issued a heirship
certificate which were produced by there on record. More importantly,
no other heir has raised any disputes questioning grant of membership to
the Petitioners.       There is no inter-se dispute amongst the family
members. The challenge to the membership was not raised by any family
member but the same was raised by the First Respondent-society.
Therefore, it was not necessary for the Divisional Joint Registrar to go
into the issue of capacity of the Petitioners as legal heirs of the original
member. The Divisional Joint Registrar has thereafter recorded a finding
that there was no evidence of the original member depositing any amount
for securing the shares of the society. Apart from the fact that there is
ample material on record about payment of share money, the
Administrator has filed Affidavit stating in paras-5 and 6 as under :

       5. I say that after perusal of the record maintained in the office especially audit
       report of the society for the year 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2008, mentioned 24
       members having the members share holding of Rs. 7115/- and the said members
       have deposited the deposit amount of Rs. 4,39,000/- with the Respondent No. 1
       Society. I say that in the said audit report a list of 24 members who are
       shareholders was enclosed wherein the Petitioner's predecessor namely Late
       Chandrakant Tukaram Parel was shown at Sr. No.4 having share of Rs. 80/-. I say
       that in the said Audit Report it was mentioned that up to 31.03.2006 and
       30.03.2007 the members advance amount is of Rs. 4,35,000 /-. Hereto annexed
       and marked as Exhibit 'R-2' is copy of the Audit Report of the year 01.04.2004 to
       31.03.2008 of the Respondent No. 1 Society.
_____________________________________________________________________________
                                     PAGE NOS. 3 of 4
                                 Thursday, 10 September 2026
Neeta Sawant                                                         11-WP-5098-2019.docx


           6. I say that after perusal of the record maintained in the office especially audit
           report of the society for the year 2008-2009, it shows that there were mentioned
           24 members having shareholding of Rs.7115/- and the said members have
           deposited the advance amount of Rs.4,45,000/- with the Respondent No.1 Society.
           I say that in the said audit report a list of 24 members who are shareholders was
           enclosed wherein Petitioner's predecessor namely Late Chandrakant Tukaram
           Parel was shown at Sr.No.9 having advance amount of Rs.20,000/-. I say that in
           the said Audit Report it was mentioned that up to 31.03.2009 the members
           advance amount is of Rs.4,45,000/-. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit 'R-3'
           is copy of the Audit Report of the year 2008-2009 of the Respondent No.1
           Society.




5)                Thus, the finding recorded by the Divisional Joint Registrar
about absence of any evidence of payment of share money is clearly
perverse.

6)                In view of the above discussion, the impugned order passed
by the Divisional Joint Registrar is clearly unsustainable and liable to be
set aside. The petitions accordingly succeed and I proceed to pass the
following order :

         (i)The order dated 3 November 2018 passed by the Divisional Joint
         Registrar is set aside. The order dated 24 July 2017 passed by the
         Deputy Registrar is confirmed.

         (ii)The Administrator shall forthwith implement the order of the
         Deputy Registrar dated 24 July 2017.

7)         The Writ Petitions are allowed in the above terms. There shall be
no order as to costs.

                                                        [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]




_____________________________________________________________________________
                                PAGE NOS. 4 of 4
                             Thursday, 10 September 2026