KASTURCHAND RAMINA AND ANRversusTHE DIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO OP AND ORS

2026:BHC-AS:35244

              Renuka                                                  6-WP-8317-2026.docx


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 8317 OF 2026
              Kasturchand Ramina and Anr                              ...Petitioners
                                   V/s.

              The Divisional Joint Registrar of Co Op                ...Respondents
              and Ors
                                           ________________
              Mr. Abhijeet A. Joshi for Petitioner.
              Mr. A. C. Bhadang, AGP for Respondent-State.
                                               ________________
                                                          CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                                           DATED: 27 AUGUST 2026.


              P.C.:


              1)               The Petition challenges orders dated 30 March 2026 passed
              by       the    Divisional   Joint    Registrar,      Konkan     Division,    Navi
              Mumbai(Divisional Joint Registrar) dismissing Revision Application
              No. 86 of 2018 and Appeal No. 10 of 2018 preferred by the Petitioners. In
              Appeal No. 10 of 2018, Petitioners have challenged report of the Inquiry
              Officer dated 22 December 2017 under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-
              operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act).


              2)               In Revision Application 86 of 2018, Petitioners had
              challenged the Recovery Certificate dated 10 May 2018 issued by the
              Deputy Registrar, Thane (Deputy Registrar).



                                                   Page No.1 of 3
                                                   27 August 2026
Renuka                                             6-WP-8317-2026.docx


3)           I have heard Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners and Mr. Bhadang, the learned AGP appearing for the
Respondent-State and have considered the submissions canvassed by
them.


4)           Perusal of the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 22
December 2017 would indicate that an inquiry was conducted under
Section 83 of the MCS Act in which various discrepancies were noticed in
the matter of carrying out repair works in the building of the society.
Therefore inquiry is also conducted by Inquiry Officer under Section 88
of the MCS Act. It appears that an amount of Rs. 45,42,692/- was spent
for carrying out the repairs. The Inquiry Officer found that the repairs
were not carried out by the then managing committee after following the
prescribed procedure. There was no estimate for carrying out the work.
Quotations were not invited. Though four tenders were received, some of
the tenders were blank. Though it was mandatory to take permission of
general body for incurring of expenditure in excess of the Rs. 1 lakh, the
same was not sought. The amount of TDS was not deposited with the
Government. Some of the payments were found to have been made
through bearer cheques. Cheque No. 342979 dated 13 September 2014 for
Rs. 1,75,000/- was issued without even writing name of the payee. These
specific findings are recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the report.


5)           More importantly, the Inquiry Officer appointed a valuer for
evaluating the value of the work and who opined vide report dated 28
November 2017 that the work worth Rs. 30,28,240/- was actually carried
out by the managing committee. However, expenditure of 45,42,692/-

                                 Page No.2 of 3
                                 27 August 2026
                          Renuka                                                    6-WP-8317-2026.docx


                          was shown to have been incurred. This is how an Inquiry Officer arrived
                          at a finding that there was a misappropriation/financial loss to the tune
                          of Rs. 15,14,452/- to the society.


                          6)           In the revision preferred before the Divisional Joint
                          Registrar, Petitioners did not question the contents of the valuation
                          report. The methodology of preparation of valuation was not challenged.
                          Beyond saying that the valuation was not acceptable, Petitioners did not
                          pinpoint any errors in the valuation report. Before the Revisional
                          Authority only six grounds were raised none of which dealt with various
                          findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer as discussed above.


                          7)           It is now sought to be suggested that since police high
                          highhandedly confiscated the records of the society, Petitioners did not
                          have access to the records for defending themselves in respect of the
                          allegations. However, perusal of the Revision Application would indicate
                          that no complaint to that effect was raised before the Divisional Joint
                          Registrar.


                          8)           Considering, the above position, in my view, there is no
                          warrant for interference in the impugned orders passed by the Divisional
                          Joint Registrar.


                          9)           Writ petition is accordingly rejected.


                                                                                [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]



Signed by: Renuka S Thakur
                                                               Page No.3 of 3
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge                            27 August 2026
Date: 28/08/2026 10:58:11