Bombay High Court
Kalpataru Jade Co operative Housing Society Federation LtdversusState of Maharashtra
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Divisional Joint Registrar’s order restoring Bye‑law No. 4(I)(h) is valid and cannot be interfered with.
Summary
The Kalpataru Jade Co-operative Housing Society Federation, formed by eight housing societies, adopted a resolution on 18 October 2025 to delete Bye-law No. 4(I)(h), which required water charges to be levied based on the total number of inlets in each flat. The Deputy Registrar approved this deletion on 24 November 2025, but the Divisional Joint Registrar set aside that approval on 8 April 2026, restoring the bye‑law, finding that its removal would prejudice members of Building E and contravene the cooperative movement. The petitioners challenged the Divisional Joint Registrar’s order, arguing that the respondents should have first contested the general‑body resolution before attacking the registrar’s approval. The court held that under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act and Rule 12(5) of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Rules, any amendment to bye‑laws must be approved by the registrar after an inquiry, and aggrieved members may directly oppose that approval. Consequently, the court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it, upholding the restoration of the bye‑law.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondents could directly challenge the registrar’s approval of the bye‑law amendment without first contesting the general‑body resolution.
- Whether the deletion of Bye‑law No.4(I)(h) is contrary to the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, the Rules, and the interests of the cooperative movement.
- Whether the procedural conduct of the general‑body meeting and the registrar’s inquiry complied with the statutory requirements.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- co-operative societies
- bye‑law amendment
- water charges
- registrar approval
- Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act
- Rule 12(5)
- Section 13
- writ petition
- procedural fairness
- co‑operative movement
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:35243
Renuka 5-WP-7414-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7414 OF 2026
Kalpataru Jade Co operative Housing ...Petitioner
Society Federation Ltd
V/s.
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
________________
Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sachin K. Handle with Mr.
Ponam Pal i/b Mr. Sachin Hande for Petitioner.
Mr. Radhikesh V. Uttarwar with Ms. Pooja R. Thakur and Ms. Pradnya C.
Solanki for Respondent.
Mr. Ketan Joshi ‘B’ Panel with Ms S. D. Chipade, AGP for Respondent-
State.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 25 AUGUST 2026.
P.C.:
1) The challenge in the Petition is to the order dated 8 April
2026 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies,
Pune Division, Pune (Divisional Joint Registrar) allowing Appeal No.
131 of 2025 and setting aside order dated 24 November 2025 passed by
the Deputy Registrar. By order dated 24 November 2025, the Deputy
Registrar has granted approval for deletion of Bye-law No. 4(I) (h) from
the approved Bye-laws of the federation. The impugned order of the
Divisional Joint Registrar results in restoration of Bye-law No. 4(I) (h).
Page No.1 of 6
25 August 2026
Renuka 5-WP-7414-2026.docx
2) Bye-law No. 4(I) (h) ensures that water charges are levied on
the basis of total number of inlets in each flat.
3) I have heard Mr. Shah, the learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Uttarwar, the learned counsel appearing
for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel
appearing for Respondent-State and have considered the submissions
canvassed by them and also gone through the findings recorded in the
orders passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar and the Deputy Registrar.
4) The Petitioner is a federation formed in respect of eight
housing societies. The federations is formed on 28 August 2025. The first
general body meeting of the federation was scheduled to be held on 18
September 2025. In that meeting, the federation was supposed to adopt
the Bye-laws approved by the Registrar. It appears that in the meeting
dated 18 October 2025, the federation adopted a resolution for deletion
of Bye-law No. 4(I) (h) which reads thus:-
h. Water Charges on the basis of the total number of inlets in each
flat and Other Common Charges on the basis of each flat.
5) Thus, Bye-law No. 4(I) (h) ensures that water charges are
levied in respect of total number of inlets in each flat. The other part of
the Bye-law ensures that the other common charges are also levied on
the basis of each flat. Bye-law No. 4(I) (h) appears to be pari materia with
Bye-law 67 (II) of Model Bye-laws which also envisages levy of water
charges on the basis of total number and size of inlets provided in each
Page No.2 of 6
25 August 2026
Renuka 5-WP-7414-2026.docx
flat. The objectors (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) are office bearers and
members of society formed by building E which comprises of 4 and half
bedroom flats. The flats in the other buildings are comparatively smaller.
Instead of levying the water charges on the basis of member of inlets in
each flat, it appears that the federation wants to levy water charges per
building. However, though Bye-law No. 4(I) (h) is deleted, the same is not
substituted by the federation with any other Bye-law. Thus after deletion
of Bye-law No. 4(I) (h), there is a vacuum, which is not filled up by any
other specific byelaw. Even otherwise deletion of Bye-law No. 4(I) (h)
appears to be contrary to the co-operative movement. In a co-operative
housing society, members should be made to pay water charges on the
basis of the water used/consumed. The water actually consumed is one of
the parameters to levy water charges on the basis of number of inlets in
each flat.
6) Mr. Shah, has contended that the remedy for Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 was to challenge the resolution adopted in General Body
held on 18 October 2025 and in absence of challenge to the underlying
resolution, it was impermissible for them to directly question the
approval granted by the Registrar. I have unable to agree. The statutory
scheme of Section 13 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
(MCS Act)and Rule12 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules
(MCS Rules), 1961 is such that after the general body adopts a resolution
for amendment of the byelaws, the amendments need to be approved by
the Registrar. Thus a Co-operative Society does not have an absolute
direction and authority to amend the byelaws unilaterally and every
amendment needs approval of the Registrar. In this situation,
Page No.3 of 6
25 August 2026
Renuka 5-WP-7414-2026.docx
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to oppose approval proceedings
before the Deputy Registrar. If they can oppose grant of approval by the
Deputy Registrar, they can also maintain a challenge against approval
granted by the Deputy Registrar. Therefore, the contention raised on
behalf of the Petitioner federation that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 must
challenge the resolution dated 18 October 2025 before the Co-operative
Court cannot be accepted. If provisions of Rule 12 (5) of the MCS Rules
are perused, it is seen that the Registrar needs to conduct inquiry as to
whether the proposed amendment is contrary to the provisions of the
Act or the Rules and whether it is against the interest of the society or
against the co-operative movement. He can grant approval only after
conduct of the inquiry as mandated under Rule 12 (5) of the MCS Rules,
Rule 12 (5) of the MCS Rules provides thus:-
Amendment of bye-laws:-
(5) On receipt of a copy of the resolution and other particulars
referred to in sub rule(4), the Registrar shall examine the amendment
proposed by the society and if he is satisfied that the amendment is
not contrary to the Act or the rules and is in the interest of the
society and co-operative movement, he may register the amendment
and issue to the society a copy of the amendment certified by him
under sub-section (2) of Section 13. Where the Registrar is of opinion
that the proposed amendment may be accepted subject to any
modification, he may indicate to the society such modification after
explaining in writing his reasons therefor.
7) In the present case, the Divisional Joint Registrar has
recorded a finding that the deletion of Bye-law No. 4(I) (h) would clearly
be against the interest of members of society formed by building E. The
relevant finding recorded by the Divisional Joint Registrar in paragraph
No. 7 of the order is as under:-
Page No.4 of 6
25 August 2026
Renuka 5-WP-7414-2026.docx
७. विकसकांनी सदर प्रकल्पामध्ये बिल्डिंग ए (सदनिका ८७), बी (सदनिका ८६), सी
(सदनिका ८२), डी (सदनिका ४१), इ (सदनिका ४१), एफ (सदनिका ८०), जी
(सदनिका ८६) व एच (सदनिका ८७) विकसित केल्या आहेत. सर्व आठ इमारतींच्या
सामाईक सुविधांसाठी फेडरेशनची स्थापना करण्यात आलेली आहे. उपविधी क्र ४ (1)
(h) मध्ये पाणी पट्टी सदनिकेतील इनलेटच्या संख्येनुसार आणि इतर सर्व सामाईक खर्च
प्रत्येक सदनिकेनिहाय आकारण्याची तरतूद आहे. तसेच गृहरचना संस्थांच्या आदर्श
उपविधी क्र ६६ मध्येही पाणी पट्टी ही इनलेटनुसार आकारण्याची तरतूद आहे . त्यामूळे
सदर तरतूद ही सभासदांच्या हिताची व न्यायकारक आहे , सबब सदर तरतूद वगळल्यास
अर्जदार यांचेवर अन्यायकारक ठरणार आहे. त्यामूळे सदरची तरतूद वगळणे उचित व
योग्य होणार नाहीं ती कायम ठे वणे आवश्यक आहे.
8) Additionally, the Divisional Joint Registrar has also gone
into the issue of the manner in which the General Body Meeting dated 18
October 2025 is conducted and decision for deletion of Bye-law No. 4(I)
(h) is adopted. The relevant findings in paragraph Nos. 5 and 8 of the
order read thus:-
५. प्रतिवादी क्र २ फेडरेशनच्या सर्वसाधारण सभेच्या दि १९.०९.२०२५ रोजीच्या
विषयपत्रिकेमध्ये विषय नसताना व निबंधकांनी मंजूर केलेले उपविधी स्विकृत करणे
अपेक्षित असताना प्रतिवादी क्र २ फेडरेशनने बेकायदेशीरपणे उपविधी क्र ४ (1) (Ch)
वगळण्याचा ठराव पारीत केला असल्याचे व प्रतिवादी क्र १ यांचेकडे त्याबाबत हरकत
नोंदविलेली असताना देखील प्रतिवादी क्र १ यांनी फेडरेशनने दाखल केलेले उपविधी
एकतर्फीरित्या, संबधि
ं तांना सुनावणीची संधी न देताच, कोणतीही कारणमीमांसा नमूद न
करताच मंजूर केले असल्याचे अर्जदार यांनी नमूद केले आहे . तसेच सभेचे अध्यक्ष हे
फेडरेशनचे वा फेडरेशनच्या सभासद असलेल्या संस्थेचे सभासद नसल्याने त्यांना अध्यक्ष
म्हणून कामकाज करता येणार नसल्याचे म्हणणे अर्जदार यांनी सादर केले आहे.
८. अर्जदार हे फेडरेशनच्या सभासद असणाऱ्या ई संस्थेचे पदाधिकारी
आहेत. अर्जदार यांनी या कार्यालयाकडे सभेतील ठराव रद्द करण्याची मागणी केलेली
नसून, प्रतिवादी क्र १ यांचे कलम १३ अन्वयेचे आदेश रद्द करण्याची मागणी केलेली आहे
त्यावर निर्णय घेण्याचा अधिकार या कार्यालयास आहे. दि १९.०९.२०२५ रोजीच्या सभा
नोटीसीमध्ये निबंधकांनी मंजूर केलेले उपविधी स्विकृत करणेचा विषय असताना,
प्रतिवादी क्र २ यांनी कोणतीही पूर्व सूचना न देताच उपविधी क्र ४ (1) (h) वगळण्याचा
ठराव केल्याचे दिसून येत आहे. अर्जदार यांनी दाखल केलेल्या कागदपत्रांवरुन श्री विवेक
पवार हे फेडरेशनचे वा डी इमारतीचे सभासद असल्याचे दिसून येत नाही. प्रतिवादी क्र १
यांनी उपविधी दरु ु स्तीच्या प्रस्तावाच्या अनुषंगाने प्राप्त झालेली हरकत विचारात न घेताच,
संबधिं तांना नैसर्गिक न्यायतत्वानुसार सुनावणीची संधी न देताच कोणतीही
कारणमीमांसा नमूद न करतानाच दि २४.११.२०२५ रोजीचा आदेश पारित केल्याचे
दिसून येत आहे.
Page No.5 of 6
25 August 2026
Renuka 5-WP-7414-2026.docx
9) Considering the above position, in my view, the impugned
order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar results in a situation where
the spirit of co-operative movement is upheld and water charges are
levied on the basis of total number of inlets provided in each flat. Even
otherwise, mere deletion of Bye-law No. 4(I) (h) would create a vacuum
and provide no guideline for levy of water charges and give handle to the
federation to levy water charges arbitrarily. In my view, therefore, no
interference is warranted in the impugned order passed by the Divisional
joint Registrar.
10) Writ Petition is devoid of merits, it is accordingly rejected.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Renuka S Thakur
Page No.6 of 6
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 25 August 2026
Date: 28/08/2026 10:57:16
Checking your session…