Bombay High Court

MAHENDRA PATIL AND ANRversusTHE DIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES PUNE DIVISION AND ORS

Decided: 7 July 2026
Disposal: Allowed
Bench: SANDEEP V MARNE

Holding

The Divisional Joint Registrar exceeded his jurisdiction; a member is not entitled to inspection of documents not enumerated in Section 154B‑8(1), and non‑supply of such documents does not trigger disqualification under Section 154B‑23.

Summary

The petitioners, Mahendra Patil and another, challenged a revision order dated 9 April 2026 issued by the Divisional Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Pune, which had set aside an earlier order of the Assistant Registrar rejecting Respondent No.3's application for disqualification of the petitioners under Section 154B‑23 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act. Respondent No.3 had demanded eight documents relating to the society's election process, of which only one (a certified copy of a General Body resolution) fell within the documents enumerated under Section 154B‑8(1). The Assistant Registrar correctly held that the society was not obliged to furnish the remaining seven documents and that the failure to provide the single resolution did not constitute a violation of Section 154B‑8(2). The Divisional Joint Registrar erred by treating the demand for those documents as a basis for disqualification, ignoring the statutory limitation on a member's right to inspect documents. The High Court held that the Divisional Joint Registrar had overstepped his jurisdiction and set aside his order, thereby restoring the Assistant Registrar’s decision. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed and no costs were awarded.

Issues considered

The scope of a member's right to inspect documents under Section 154B‑8 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act.
Whether the failure to provide the eight documents demanded by Respondent No.3 amounts to a violation of Section 154B‑8(2) justifying disqualification under Section 154B‑23.
Whether the Divisional Joint Registrar had jurisdiction to set aside the Assistant Registrar’s order.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 154B-23, 154B-8(1), 154B-8(2)

Subjects

co-operative societies
document inspection
disqualification
Section 154B
jurisdiction
writ petition
High Court

Judgment

Vaishnavi                                               39-WP-7665-2026


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                      WRIT PETITION NO. 7665 OF 2026

Mahendra Patil and Anr.                               ...Petitioners

                     V/s.

The Divisional Joint Registrar                       ...Respondents
Co Operative Societies Pune
Division and Ors.
                                ________________
Mr. Balkrishna Patthak with Ms. Priyanshu S. Mishra with Ms. Sankshi
Gadekar, for Petitioner.
Mr. A.C. Bhadang, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Radlikesh V. Uttarwar, through V.C. with Ms. Pooja R. Thakur & Ms.
Pradnya C. Solanki, for Respondent No.3.
                                ________________


                                          CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                           DATED: 07 July 2026


P.C.:


1)          By this Petition, the Petitioners have challenged order dated 9
April 2026 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Society,
Pune, (Divisional Joint Registrar) partly allowing Revision Application
No. 46 of 2024 and setting aside order passed by the Assistant Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Pune, (Assistant Registrar)on 3 September 2025.
By order dated 3 September 2025, the Assistant Registrar had rejected



                                   Page No.1 of 5
                                    07 July 2026
Vaishnavi                                                     39-WP-7665-2026


the application preferred by Respondent No. 3 under provisions of
Section 154B-23 seeking disqualiBcation of the Petitioners.


2)          I have heard, Mr.Patthak, the learned counsel appearing for
Petitioner, Mr. Bhadang, learned counsel appearing for Respondent-
State, Mr. Uttarwar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 and
have considered the submissions canvassed by them, I have also gone
through the reasons recorded by the Divisional Joint Registrar and
Assistant Registrar in their respective orders. I have also perused the
records of the case Bled alongwith the Petitions.


3)          I appears that, the Respondent No. 3 had submitted application
to the Society on 10 November 2024, demanding following 8 documents:
               Detailed List of Documents:
              1. Copy of the order of the State Cooperative Election Authority for
              appointment of a returning ofBcer for the election of new members to the
              Managing Committee of the Society
              2. CertiBed copy of the Election Program issued by Returning ofBcer.
              3. CertiBed copy of the nomination forms received for the election.
              4. CertiBed copy of the list of valid nominations issued by the Returning
              ofBcer.
              5. CertiBed copy of the Bnal election results.
              6. Copy of the acknowledgment of the submission of the result with the
              ofBce of the AR.
              7. CertiBed copy of the GB resolution for submission of the proposal to
              conduct elections to the vacancies.
              8. Order of the AR for appointment of new Committee members.

4)          Except the document at serial No. 7, the rest of the 7 documents
are not the ones enumerated under Section 154B-8(1) of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS). The rest of the 7
documents pertain to conduct of elections and provisions of sub-section
(1) of Section 154B-8 do not envisage grant of inspection of those

                                       Page No.2 of 5
                                        07 July 2026
Vaishnavi                                                   39-WP-7665-2026


documents by the member of the Society. Similarly, sub-section (2) of
Section 154B-8 does not cast a duty on the Society to make available
copies of those documents to a member.


5)          So far as the document at serial No. 7 viz., certiBed copy of GB
resolution for submission of proposal to conduct elections to the
vacancies is concerned, the Society has taken a stand that no such
general body resolution has been adopted. In that view of the matter,
non supply of document at serial No. 7 does not amount to violation of
provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 154B-(8).


6)          The Assistant Registrar had rightly appreciated the above
position while dismissing the application of Respondent No. 3 seeking
disqualiBcation of the committee members. The Divisional Joint
Registrar has erred in directing disqualiBcation of the Petitioners by
recording a Bnding that the documents demanded by Respondent No. 3
do not relate to personal information of other members. The Divisional
Joint       Registrar   ought   to   have     appreciated   the    position   that
disqualiBcation under provisions of clause (iii) of sub-section 1 of
Section 154B-23 can be ordered only if there is a violation of provisions
of Section 154 B-8(2) of the MCS Act. For occurrence of violation of
provisions of Section 154B-8(2), there needs to be failure on the part of
the Society/members of committee to furnish documents enumerated in
sub-section 1 of Section 154B-(8). The provision cannot be interpreted to
mean that a member is entitled to secure inspection/copies of every
document ,which does not pertain to personal information of another



                                     Page No.3 of 5
                                      07 July 2026
Vaishnavi                                                39-WP-7665-2026


member. The Divisional Joint Registrar has thus grossly erred in setting
aside the order passed by the Assistant Registrar.


7)          It also appears that the Divisional Joint Registrar has referred to
earlier request made by Respondent No. 3 on 8 August 2024, for the
purpose of directing disqualiBcation of the Petitioners. Perusal of the
application preferred by Respondent No. 3 would indicate that
disqualiBcation was sought for non supply of documents demanded vide
letter/Email dated 10 November 2024. The demand for disqualiBcation
therefore, had no nexus with the so called request made on 8 August
2024.


8)          Mr. Uttarwar, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3
has strenuously contended that all the documents demanded by
Respondent No. 3 on 10 November 2024 are part of resolutions adopted
by the managing committee of the Society. However, perusal of the list in
Email dated 10 November 2024 does not bear out that the said
documents relate to resolutions adopted in the managing committee
meeting. It is another thing that the Society appears to have supplied to
Respondent No. 3 minutes of the several managing committee meetings
on 15 November 2024.


9)          Considering the above position, I am of the view that, the
Divisional Joint Registrar has overstepped his jurisdiction in setting
aside well considered decision of the Assistant Registrar. Order dated 9
April 2026, passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar is indefensible. It is
accordingly set aside.

                                     Page No.4 of 5
                                      07 July 2026
Vaishnavi                                               39-WP-7665-2026




10)         The Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. There shall be no
order as to costs.


                                                   [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]




                                  Page No.5 of 5
                                   07 July 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…