DILIP SITARAM UDMALE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:8588
                                          1                            937.WP.7166.24.odt


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 7166 OF 2024

                                1. DILIP SITARAM UDMALE
                                2. BHAUSAHEB HARIBHAU NAWALE
                                3. BABASAHEB DUALATA SAPRE
                                4. BHAUSAHEB BARKU SASE
                                5. JALINDAR BAYAJI DHAWALE
                                6. BHARAT RAMBHAU GORDE
                                7. KESHAV BABAN MOKASHE
                                8. RAOSAHEB PARAJI LOKHANDE
                                9. PARVIN RAFIQ PATHAN
                                10. MINA SARJERAO JADHAV
                                11. ABASAHEB THAKAJI RAJALE
                                12. BAJIRAO SADASHIV GUNJAL
                                13. RAOSAHEB FAKIRA BORUDE
                                14. GANESH BHUMAYYA TATI

                                          VERSUS
                        THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH
                     THE DIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR AND OTHERS
                                              ...
                      Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. More Abhijit S.
                        AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. V.M. Jaware
                     Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. Vitthal H. Dighe
                                              ...
                                CORAM           : ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.


                                  DATE           : 20.02.2026

             ORDER :

             1.           Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With

             the consent of the parties, the writ petition is decided at the stage of

             admission.
                              2                              937.WP.7166.24.odt


2.           By this writ petition, the petitioners are taking exception

to the order dated 12.10.2023, passed by the Divisional Joint

Registrar, Co-operative Societies Nashik Division, Nashik, in Appeal

No.A-55/2023 by which the appeal filed by respondent No.3 has

been allowed by the said appellate authority thereby setting aside

the enquiry report dated 28.12.2022 submitted by the enquiry

officer under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies

Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act of 1960’)

3.   The facts giving rise to filing of this Writ Petition are as follows :

      (i) The petitioners were office bearers of the Co-

      operative    Society   viz.   Jayhind    Ahmednagar       Zilla

      Parishad Pagardar Naukaranchi Sahkari Patpedhi (for

      short ‘ the said society’)

      (ii)   It seems that under the order of the respondent-

      authorities, an enquiry was permitted to be conducted

      under Section 88 of the Act of 1960 not only against the

      petitioners but even against the respondent No.3 who

      happens to be the ex-chairman of the said society. It

      appears that in the said enquiry under Section 88 of the

      Act of 1960, the enquiry officer have exonerated the

      petitioners and fixed the liability upon the respondent
                            3                             937.WP.7166.24.odt


     No.3 for an amount of Rs.1,81,83,336/-(Rupees One

     Crore Eighty One Lacs Eighty Three Thousand Three

     Hundred Thirty Six Only)

     (iii) It further appears that the respondent No.3

     challenged the said enquiry report under Section 152 of

     the Act of 1960 before the respondent No.2, District

     Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ahmednagar in

     Appeal No.A-55/2023. The respondent No.2/Appellate

     Authority   however,       by   impugned   order      dated

     12.10.2023 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent

     No.3 thereby setting aside the enquiry report dated

     28.12.2022 submitted under Section 88 of the Act of

     1960. While setting aside the enquiry report, the

     respondent No.2/Appellate Authority remanded the

     matter back to the District Deputy Registrar, Co-

     operative Societies, Ahmednagar for appointment of

     enquiry officer and for passing appropriate order.

4.   Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that by virtue of

exonerating the petitioners in an enquiry held by the erstwhile

enquiry officer, while challenging the said enquiry report, the

respondent No.3 ought to have added the petitioners as party-
                             4                           937.WP.7166.24.odt


respondents. He would submit that the petitioners were proper and

necessary parties as any order that would be adverse to the

petitioners in appeal, would definitely cause prejudice to the

petitioners. He would submit that since, the order impugned is

prejudicial to the interest of petitioners and having been passed

without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the

same is violative of principles of natural justice. He therefore, urged

that the impugned order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the

respondent No.2 deserves to be quashed and set-aside.

5.    Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3

would submit that since, the impugned order has been passed in

appeal under Section 152 of the Act of 1960, the petitioners have an

alternate efficacious remedy of filing revision under Section 154 of

the Act of 1960 before the State Government. He therefore, submits

that the Writ Petition is not maintainable under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India since, the petitioners have bye-passed an

alternate efficacious remedy.

6.    He would further submit that since by the impugned order, the

respondent No.2/appellate authority have merely remanded the

matter back to the enquiry officer for conducting fresh enquiry, the

petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved by the remand order. He
                             5                           937.WP.7166.24.odt


therefore, urge that the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.

7.    Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

learned AGP and the learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.3, I find that so far as the preliminary objection raised by the

learned counsel for respondent No.3 is concerned the same is

devoid of any substance for a simple reason that apparently the

impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is without serving

notice as well as giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the

impugned order depicts utter violation of principles of natural

justice. No doubt, this Court would be slow in entertaining the Writ

Petition under Article 227 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India

in view of availability of alternate efficacious remedy however,

entertaining the Writ Petition either under Article 227 or Article 226

of the Constitution of India is a self-imposed restriction. Entraining

the Writ Petition is no bar merely on the ground of availability of

alternate efficacious remedy as there are certain exceptions those

have been carved out in the light of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of Whirpool Corporation vs. Registrar of

Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors.; 1998 (8) SCC 1 wherein the Hon’ble

Apex Court in paragraph Nos.14 and 15 observed thus :

         “14. The power to issue prerogative writs under
                            6                           937.WP.7166.24.odt


        Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature
        and is not limited by any other provision of the
        Constitution This power can be exercised by the
        High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature
        of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua
        Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any
        of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of
        the Constitution but also for "any other purpose".

        15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High
        Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has
        discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ
        petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself
        certain restrictions one of which is that if an
        effective and efficacious remedy is available, the
        High Court would not normally exercise its
        jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been
        consistently held by this court not to operate as a
        bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where
        the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement
        of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has
        been a violation of the principle of natural justice or
        where the order or proceedings are wholly without
        jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.
        There is a plethora of case law on this point but to
        cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool we would
        rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of
        the constitutional law as they still hold the field.”


8.   It would also be apposite to rely on the judgment of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society

vs. UCO Bank and Ors. ;(2024) 6 SCC 579 wherein the Hon’ble

Apex Court in paragraph No.29 observed thus :

      “29. It could thus clearly be seen that the Court has
      carved out certain exceptions when a petition Under
      Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in
      spite of availability of an alternative remedy. Some of
                                 7                           937.WP.7166.24.odt


           them are thus:

               (i) where the statutory authority has not acted in
           accordance with the provisions of the enactment in
           question;
              (ii) it has acted in defiance of the fundamental
           principles of judicial procedure;
             (iii) it has resorted to invoke the provisions which are
           repealed; and
           (iv) when an order has been passed in total violation of
           the principles of natural justice.

9.        In the light of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

of Whirpool Corporation (supra) as well as PHR Invent Educational

Society (supra), I find that since the order impugned has been

passed in violation of principles of natural justice, in peculiar facts

and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to entertain the Writ

Petition without relegating the petitioners to avail an alternate

remedy of filing revision under Section 154 of the Act of 1960.

10.       In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow the Writ

Petition by setting aside the impugned order by remanding the

matter back to the respondent No.2/appellate authority for giving

sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Hence, I pass the

following order :

                                 ORDER

     I.    The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
                               8                           937.WP.7166.24.odt


   II.   The impugned order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the
         Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik
         Division Nashik, in Appeal No.A-55/2023, is hereby
         quashed and set aside.

   III. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.2-
         appellate authority to decide the appeal after giving
         sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

   IV.   The respondent No.3 is directed to add the petitioners as
         party-respondents in Appeal No. A.55/2023.

   V.    Since, the parties have agreed to appear before the
         respondent No.2/appellate authority on 12.03.2026 at
         11:00 am, no separate notices will be issued to either of
         the parties.
   VI. In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the
         respondent No.2-appellate authority is directed to decide
         the appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any case
         within a period of three months from today.

   VII. Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to
         costs.


                                      (ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)


vsj..