Bombay High Court
RAJENDRA MAHADEV PATIL AND ORSversusRAMAN PITA GOVARDHAN ARORA AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that it cannot issue a writ or any other direction to the co‑operative society (Respondent No.8) for the distribution of compensation.
Summary
The petitioners sought a writ directing Respondent No.8, a co‑operative society, to distribute compensation that had been paid to the society, alleging selective disbursement that excluded the petitioners. The court held that, under its writ jurisdiction, it cannot issue a writ or any direction against a co‑operative society for such internal distribution matters. Since the compensation had already been disbursed to the society, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to approach the competent forum to claim their proportionate share. Consequently, the petition was disposed, with liberty granted to the petitioners to initiate suitable proceedings in accordance with law. The rights and contentions of all parties were expressly kept open for future litigation.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a writ or direction against a co‑operative society for the internal distribution of compensation already paid to it.
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- co‑operative society
- compensation distribution
- appropriate forum
- civil appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
11-WP-8970-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8970 OF 2023
Rajendra Mahadev Patil and Others ...Petitioners.
Versus
Raman pita Govardhan Arora and Others ...Respondents.
——————
Mr. Ashok B Tajane (Through VC) with Mr. Balaji P. Shinde, for the Petitioners.
Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondents-State.
Mr. Pankajsinh A. Deshmukh, i/b. Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure, for the Respondent
No.2.
Mr. R. M. Haridas, i/b. Mr. Prasad P. Kulkarni, for the Respondent No.8.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : August 29, 2026.
P. C. :
1. Considering the relief sought, this Court in exercise of writ
jurisdiction cannot issue writ or any other direction to Respondent No.8,
which is a Co-operative Society. The contention of learned counsel
appearing for Respondents is that the Competent Authority has already
disbursed the amount of compensation to the Respondent No.8 and the
relief which is required to be sought is against the Respondent No.8.
2. As the compensation has already been disbursed to Respondent
No.8-Society and allegation is that the Respondent No.8 has selectively
disbursed the compensation to some of the members, excluding the
present Petitioner, the remedy of the Petitioners is to ile appropriate
Gaikwad RD 1 of 2
11-WP-8970-2023.doc
proceedings in the Competent Forum seeking their proportionate share
of the compensation.
3. The Petition is disposed of with liberty to adopt an appropriate
proceedings in accordance with law.
4. The rights and contentions of all parties are expressly kept open.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Digitally
signed by
RAJU
RAJU DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD Date:
2026.08.31
12:16:08
+0530
Gaikwad RD 2 of 2
Checking your session…