Bombay High Court
ABDUL LATIF HUSSAIN ALI SHAIKH AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA (THR. TROMBAY POLICE STATION ) AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The motion of no confidence is invalid due to the participation of ineligible voting members, rendering the certificate and subsequent orders void.
Summary
The petitioners, who were Chairman and Secretary of a Maharashtra cooperative society, challenged a special meeting held on 9 December 2025 that adopted a motion of no confidence and removed them from office. The motion was passed by a 5‑to‑2 majority of the seven members present, but two of those voting members (Respondents No. 7 and No. 9) had either sold their tenements or had their allotments cancelled, rendering them ineligible to vote under Sections 154B‑24(1) and 73‑1D of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act. The Court examined the eligibility of the voting members and held that any disability disqualifies their votes, making the motion illegal. Consequently, the Court set aside the motion of no confidence, the certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar on 4 March 2026, the election of new office‑bearers, and the order to take over the society’s records. The writ petition was allowed, restoring the petitioners to their positions.
Issues considered
- Whether the motion of no confidence adopted at the special meeting is valid when some voting members are ineligible under the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act.
- Whether the certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar is valid when the underlying motion is invalid.
- Whether the election of new Chairman and Secretary and the order to take over society records are void.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 154B-24(1), 73-1D
Subjects
- cooperative society
- motion of no confidence
- eligibility of members
- removal of office bearers
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
- certificate of removal
- civil consequences
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:37005
Renuka 21-WP-9642-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9642 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7058 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 9642 OF 2026
Abdul Latif Hussain Ali Shaikh and Anr ...Petitioners
V/s.
State Of Maharashtra (Through ...Respondents
Trombay Police Station ) and Ors
________________
Mr. M. G. Rajbhar, a/w Ms. Anita Rajbhar, Ms. Sonali Karush for
Petitioners.
Mr. Ashok Pote for Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 9.
Ms. S. D. Chipade, AGP for Respondent-State.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 7 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1) The Petition challenges the Minutes of Special Meeting held
on 9 December 2025 convened for the purpose of adopting a Motion of
No Confidence against the Petitioners. In the meeting held on 9
December 2025, 7 out of the 8 members of the managing committee were
present and out of those 7 members present and voting, 5 members
voted in favour of the Motion of No Confidence. Accordingly, Petitioners,
Page No.1 of 5
7 SEPTEMBER 2026
Renuka 21-WP-9642-2026.docx
who were Chairman and Secretary of the society, are removed from their
respective positions by virtue of the motion adopted in the meeting held
on 9 December 2025. Accordingly, certificate dated 4 March 2026 is
issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, SRA, which is
also under challenge in the present Petition. Petitioners have also
challenged the consequential orders and actions.
2) I have heard Mr. Rajbhar, the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioners, Mr. Pote, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent
Nos. 6, 7 and 9 and Ms. Chipade, the learned AGP appearing for
Respondent-State.
3) On 30 July 2026, this Court had made following observations
in paragraph 4 of the order:-
4. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that in the
Special Meeting held on 9 December 2025, two persons were allowed
to participate and vote in the meeting viz. Mr. Shaikh Muklesh
Maulana Mustafa and Smt. Shaikh Rosina Muklesh. According to him,
Mr. Shaikh Muklesh Maulana Mustafa has already sold his tenement
and is illegally functioning on the Managing Committee without
having any interest in the property of the Society. So far as Smt.
Shaikh Rosina Muklesh is concerned, it is submitted that her name
does not appear in Annexure-II but she has encroached upon one of the
tenements in the building. He therefore submits that right of these two
persons to participate in the Special Meeting and vote in favour of
Motion of No Confidence is seriously under dispute. It is submitted
that if votes of these two persons are ignored, the requisite 2/3rd
majority within the meaning of Section 154B-24(1) read with Section
Page No.2 of 5
7 SEPTEMBER 2026
Renuka 21-WP-9642-2026.docx
73-1D of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (the MCS
Act) is not fulfilled.
4) Today this Court enquired with the learned counsel
appearing for the Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 9 as to whether Respondent
Nos. 7 has indeed sold the tenement (Flat No. 503). He invites my
attention to the affidavit in reply. From contents of paragraph Nos. 29
and 30 of the affidavit-in-reply, it does appear that a transaction of sale
was executed on 26 September 2017 by Respondent No. 7 with Mr.
Kalachand Shabdar Ali in respect of flat No. 503. The learned counsel
however submits that the transaction is incomplete. He however fairly
submits that Mr. Kalachand Shabdar Ali is in possession of flat No. 503.
Thus, Respondent No. 7 has entered into sale transaction of the tenant,
has handed over its possession and does not even reside in the building
but has functioned as managing committee member and voted in
support of Motion of No Confidence. So far as Respondent No. 9 is
concerned, in paragraph No. 31 of the affidavit-in-reply, the allegation of
absence of eligibility in Annexure II is sought to be dealt with. However
there is no positive statement that the name of the Respondent No. 9
figures in Annexure II. Prima facie, it appears that the allotment made in
favour of Respondent No. 9 has been cancelled and the matter is sub
judice. Again, participation in the affairs of the society by Respondent
No. 9 whose right to hold tenement itself is under question and her
participation in the decision making process for adopting Motion for No
Confidence for removal of Petitioners does not appear to be in order.
Page No.3 of 5
7 SEPTEMBER 2026
Renuka 21-WP-9642-2026.docx
5) Even qua Respondent No. 6, there appears to be serious
doubt on her ability to participate in the meeting and vote in favour of
Motion of No Confidence.
6) Since adoption of Motion of No Confidence results in serious
civil consequences and office bearers of the society can be removed by
mere 2/3rd majority without assigning reason, there needs to be strict
compliance with provisions of the Act. Once it is found that the members
voting in favour of motion suffer from any disability, the Motion of No
Confidence will be rendered illegal. In the present case, this Court is of
the view that Respondent Nos. 7 and 9 do suffer from some disability to
function as managing committee members and particularly to vote in
favour of the Motion of No Confidence. It looks quite strange that
persons who have either sold their tenement or whose allotment of
tenement is cancelled have participated in Special Meeting for adoption
of Motion of No Confidence against the chairman and secretary of the
society. Ordinarily, while deciding the issue of validity of Motion of No
Confidence, this Court would not go into the issue of validity of election
of members of managing committee or their eligibility to function as
such. However, since adoption of Motion of No Confidence involves
serious consequences, it is imperative that persons who suffer from some
disability do not take part in the meeting for adoption of Motion of No
Confidence. Here person unconnected with the affairs of the building
have decided the fate of the office bearers of the society.
7) Considering the peculiar facts of the present case, in my
view, the Motion of No Confidence adopted in the meeting held on 9
Page No.4 of 5
7 SEPTEMBER 2026
Renuka 21-WP-9642-2026.docx
December 2025 appears to be clearly erroneous and deserves to be set
aside.
8) The Petition accordingly succeeds. The Motion of No
Confidence shown to have been adopted in the meeting dated 9
December 2025 as well as the certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar
dated 4 March 2026 are set aside. Consequently, the election of new
Chairman and Secretary in respect of society are also set aside. Order
dated 24 June 2026 for taking over records of the society from Petitioners
is also set aside.
9) Writ Petition is allowed in above terms.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Renuka S Thakur
Page No.5 of 5
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 7 SEPTEMBER 2026
Date: 09/09/2026 10:52:09
Checking your session…