Dhanraj Charansingh Birda vs The Divisional Joint Registrar Co Op Soc And Ors
- Court
- Bombay High Court
CNR No : HCBM010516992026
2026:BHC-AS:44823
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 15358 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 30509 OF 2026
Ramdas Baban Kate
...Petitioner
V/s.
1.
Divisional Joint Co-operative Societies, Pune
Division, Pune
2.
Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies,
Pune City (3), Pune
3.
Dhanraj Charansingh Birda
...Respondents
________________
Mr. Drupad Patil with Mr. Suyash Sule for the Petitioner.
Mr. Anandsingh Bayas with Mr. Daulat Hinge, Mr. Swapnil Sangle and
Mr. Prithvirajsingh Bayas for Respondent No. 3.
Ms. S. D. Chipade , AGP for Respondent-State.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
RESD. ON: 26 OCTOBER 2026.
PRON. ON: 3 NOVEMBER 2026.
JUDGMENT:
1) Petitioner is aggrieved by the Order dated 12 October 2023
passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Pune
Page No. 1 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
Division Pune, ( Divisional Joint Registrar ) dismissing his Revision
Application No. 283 of 2023 and confirming the order dated 30 January
2023 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies Pune City
(3) ( Deputy Registrar ). By Order dated 30 January 2023, the Deputy
Registrar has disqualified the Petitioner from being a managing
committee member as well as from being elected or nominated as
managing committee member for a period of five years under the
provisions of Section 154B-23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies
Act, 1960 ( MCS Act ).
2) The land bearing Survey Nos. 210 and 211 situated at
Village-Wakad, Tq.-Mulshi, District-Pune, were originally owned by
Bhalchandra Dev and his family members. For development of Pimpri
Chinchwad New Town, the land admeasuring 39 H, 26R from survey No.
210 and 1 H 23 R from survey No. 211 was acquired on 23 September
1986 by an award made under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894. The owners preferred an application to the Government and
showed readiness to handover the possession of around 25 acres of land
to Pimpri Chinchwad New Development Town Authority and to transfer
remaining land of around 76 acres in favour of four co-operative housing
societies for accommodating poor and needy persons. The application of
the owner was allowed and order dated 7 July 1992 was passed by the
Government directing the Collector to take requisite steps. Accordingly,
Mr. Bhalchandra Dev and others executed four release deeds in favour of
four societies namely Rama Society, Yashomala Society, Ishan Society
and Ankita Society.
Page No. 2 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
3) Ishan Co-operative Housing Society was registered on 24
July 1992 whereas Ankita Co-operative Housing Society was registered
on 21 July 1992. One Smt. Anjali Shashak Nivasarkar, sister of Mr. Rajiv
Bhale was appointed as the chief promoter of Ishan Society. One Mr.
Suhas Bhalchandra Gosavi, General Manager of M/s Rama Automobiles
owned by Mr. Rajiv Bhale was appointed as the chief promoter of Ankita
Society. Release deed of land admeasuring 29.87 acres was executed in
favour of Ishan Society and Release deed of land admeasuring 2.01 acres
was executed in favour of Ankita society.
4) Joint layout of the lands bearing Survey No. 210/3 and 210/4
was prepared and approved. The two societies executed Development
Agreements dated 27 April 1995 in favour of M/s Yashraj Builders Pvt.
Ltd of Mr. Rajiv Bhale. The land allotted to Ishan society was divided into
249 plots. Between 2001 to 2007, promoters of the Ishan society allotted
194 plots to 181 persons on lease of 999 years. However, inspite of
allotment of plot on lease membership was not given to the lessees.
Therefore, allottees submitted application seeking membership of Ishan
Co-operative Housing Society. By common order dated 23 March 2015,
the Deputy Registrar allowed the Application filed by several persons
and directed that the said persons had acquired the status of deemed
members under Section 22 (2) of the MCS Act. The order passed by the
Deputy Registrar was confirmed in revision by the Divisional Joint
Registrar by order dated 29 July 2019. This is how Petitioner as well as
Respondent No. 3 acquired membership of Ishan Society by virtue of
orders passed by the Deputy Registrar and the Divisional Joint Registrar.
Page No. 3 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
5) It appears that elections of the Ishan Society were not
conducted for a considerable period of time. Therefore, by order dated 14
December 2015, Mr. R. S. Bhujbal, District Special Auditor Class-I was
appointed to conduct the audit of Ishan Society and Ankita Society. The
auditor submitted a report for the years 2001 to 2013 highlighting
various irregularities by the promoters of the societies. Acting on the
report of the auditor, the Deputy Registrar appointed Board of
Administrators to take over charge of Society's records for conduct of
elections vide order dated 5 September 2019. The said order was
confirmed by the Divisional Joint Registrar on 16 March 2021 and by the
Hon'ble Minister on 24 March 2021. Accordingly, the Board of
Administrators took charge of the records of the society and also took
steps for conduct of elections. Accordingly, elections to the managing
committee of Ishan Society were conducted on 14 November 2021 under
which Petitioner and other members were elected as managing
committee members. Petitioner also became the Chairman of the
society.
6) Respondent No. 3 was not enrolled as member of the society
and made an application dated 29 November 2021 to the
chairman/secretary of Ishan Society seeking copies of various
documents. Respondent No. 3 forwarded the said application to Deputy
Registrar. By letter dated 15 December 2021, the Deputy Registrar
directed the society to supply copies of the demanded documents.
Society sent reply to the Deputy Registrar taking a stand that
Respondent No. 3 is not a member of the society and was therefore not
entitled to demand copies of any documents.
Page No. 4 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
7) It appears that Respondent No. 3 applied on 7 April 2022
seeking disqualification of managing committee members under
provisions of Section 154B-23 of the MCS Act. The Deputy Registrar
passed order dated 14 July 2022 disqualifying the Petitioner for a period
of five years. The Petitioner preferred Revision Application No. 282 of
2022 before the Divisional Joint Registrar challenging the order of
disqualification dated 14 July 2022. By order dated 27 October 2022, the
Divisional Joint Registrar remanded the proceedings to the Deputy
Registrar for fresh adjudication. In the remanded proceedings, the
Deputy Registrar again passed order dated 30 January 2023 disqualifying
the Petitioner from being a member of managing committee for a period
of five years. Petitioner filed Revision Application No. 283 of 2023 before
the Divisional Joint Registrar. However, by order dated 12 October 2023,
the Divisional Joint Registrar has dismissed the revision preferred by the
Petitioner. Petitioner has accordingly filed the present Petition
challenging the orders dated 12 October 2023 passed by the Divisional
Joint Registrar and 30 January 2023 passed by the Deputy Registrar.
8) By order dated 6 March 2025, this Court granted ad-interim
stay to the disqualification order. By further order dated 7 April 2025,
this Court has admitted the Petition and has continued the interim stay
until further orders.
9) Respondent No. 3 has filed Interim Application (L) No.
30509 of 2026 seeking vacation of interim stay. Instead of deciding the
application for vacation of stay, the Petition is taken up for final hearing
Page No. 5 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for
parties.
10) Mr. Patil, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner submits that the Deputy Registrar and the Divisional Joint
Registrar have mechanically passed the order of disqualification without
appreciating the factual circumstances, particularly the fact that the very
membership of Respondent No. 3 itself was under a cloud, thereby
justifying the Petitioner's decision not to furnish the demanded
documents. He further submits that the Board of Administrator
appointed to conduct the elections prepared a voter's list, which did not
include the name of Respondent No. 3. He submits that the Board of
Administrator had clearly prepared a list of members of the society and
had excluded the name of Respondent No. 3, who had failed to pay the
amount towards allotment of the plot. That the list so prepared by the
Board of Administrator did not include the name of Respondent No. 3.
That Petitioner became office bearer of the society by virtue of first
election conducted in the year 2019 and at that time, proper records of
the society were not available for verifying or preparing the membership
register. He submits that Petitioner therefore genuinely believed that
Respondent No. 3 was not a member, who was entitled to seek
documents. He submits that without considering the mitigating
circumstances, the Deputy Registrar mechanically proceeded to
disqualify the Petitioner. He relies on judgment of this Court in
Shashikant M. Ramane and Ors. V/s Joint Registrar Co-operative
1
Societies in support of his contention that order of disqualification
1
Writ Petition No. 7757 of 2026 decided on 1 July 2026
Page No. 6 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
cannot be mechanically passed without taking into consideration the
reason for non-supply of demanded documents. He submits that in
Shahid Tamboli and Ors. V/s Divisional Joint Registrar Co-op. Societies
2
and Ors . , this Court has held that disqualification for violation of the
provisions of Section 154B-8(2) of the MCS Act is not automatic.
Although the expression “without any reasonable or justifiable cause”
does not find place in Section 154B-23 of the MCS Act, the Registrar is
entitled to consider the existence of a reasonable or justifiable cause
while deciding the issue of disqualification. That in the present case,
there was justifiable cause of Petitioner not to supply demanded
documents to Respondent No. 3. That Respondent No. 3 was not paying
maintenance dues and is otherwise in habit of demanding several
documents from time to time for the purpose of putting the managing
committee into difficulties. He prays for setting aside the impugned
orders.
11) Mr. Bayas, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.
3 opposes the Petition. He submits that Petitioner and Respondent No. 3
acquired membership of the society by virtue of same orders passed by
the Deputy Registrar and Divisional Joint Registrar. That therefore
Petitioner was fully aware about valid membership of Respondent No. 3
but deliberately created a false picture before the Deputy Registrar that
he was not member of the society. That the provisions of Section 154B-8
of the MCS Act are mandatory in nature and that, upon noticing any
violation thereof, the Registrar is justified in ordering the
disqualification of the erring members of the Managing Committee. He
2
(2023) SCC OnLine Bom 1479
Page No. 7 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
submits that in the present case, there is deliberate violation of
provisions of Section 154B-8 of the MCS on the part of the Petition. That
Petitioner is singularly running the entire society without holding
elections. That he has manipulated the records of the society. He submits
that immediate disqualification of the Petitioner is therefore warranted
in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In support of his
contentions, he relies on judgments of this Court in Shashikant M.
Ramane (supra), Vijay Kashinath Bagade V/s Deputy Registrar Co-op
3
Societies and others , Nair Pushpa Sureshkumar and Ors. V/s State of
4
Maharashtra and Ors. , Shahid Tamboli (supra) and The Cosmos Co-
5
op. Bank Ltd. V/s M/s Durgesh Tube India and Ors . Mr. Bayas prays for
dismissal of Petition.
12) Rival contentions urged on behalf of parties, now fall for my
consideration.
13) Respondent No. 3 demanded copies of various documents by
letter dated 29 November 2021. He contended in his Application that he
is member of the society, who was granted membership in the year 2015
by the Deputy Registrar. He claims residence in Plot No. 99. He stated
that he had demanded all the documents relating to elections held on 15
November 2021 which were not supplied to him. Additionally, he sought
copies of following documents (i) minutes of all annual general meetings
and special general meetings from the date of registration of the society.
3
(2026) BHC-AS: 33149
4
2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5201
5
(2026) BHC-AS: 29661-DB
Page No. 8 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
(ii) society's ‘I’ and ‘J’ register (iii)all audit reports of the society from the
date of its registration.
14) Respondent No. 3 appended cheque of Rs. 1,000/- alongwith
Application dated 29 November 2021 and also showed willingness to pay
further amount towards copying charges, if required. It appears that copy
of letter dated 29 November 2021 was addressed by Respondent No. 3 to
several authorities including Deputy Registrar. The Deputy Registrar
directed the Chairman/Secretary of the society by letter dated 15
December 2021 to supply documents as per the bye-laws.
15) Petitioner was functioning as the Chairman of the society
when requisition for documents was received by the society. Petitioner
gave response dated 17 December 2021 to the Deputy Registrar
emphatically contending that Respondent No. 3 was not member of the
society. He invited attention of Deputy Registrar to the letter dated 25
May 2021 by which Deputy Registrar's permission was sought for
launching criminal prosecution in respect of misappropriation of
amount of Rs. 7,16,00,000/-. The Petitioner contended that instead of
granting such permission, the Deputy Registrar erroneously forwarded
the letter submitted by Respondent No. 3, who was not even a member of
the Society. It was on this ground that the Petitioner categorically
refused to furnish any of the demanded documents to Respondent No. 3.
16) It appears that Respondent No. 3 submitted Application
dated 7 April 2022, copy of which is not on record. However, from recitals
of order dated 14 July 2022, it appears that the Application dated 7 April
Page No. 9 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
2022 was submitted by Respondent No. 3 under provisions of Section
154B-23 of the MCS Act seeking disqualification of Petitioner.
17) The Deputy Registrar acted on Application dated 7 April
2022 and proceeded to pass order dated 14 July 2022 disqualifying
Petitioner for a period of 5 years under Section 154B-23 of the MCS Act.
As observed above, order dated 14 July 2022 was set aside by the
Divisional Joint Registrar and the matter was remanded to the Deputy
Registrar. However, on 30 January 2023, the Deputy Registrar once again
ordered Petitioner's disqualification for a period of five years. The order
dated 30 January 2023 passed by the Deputy Registrar has been
confirmed in revision by the Divisional Joint Registrar. It is the orders
passed by the Deputy Registrar on 30 January 2023 and by Divisional
Joint Registrar on 12 October 2023 which are subject matter to the
challenge in the present Petition.
18) Section 154B-8 of the MCS Act creates a right in favour of
every member of a society to inspect copy of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws
last audited annual balance-sheet, profit and loss account, list of
members of committee, register of members, the minutes of general
meeting, minutes of committee meetings and those portions of the
books records in which his transactions of the society are recorded.
Correspondingly, sub-section (2) of Section 154B-8 imposes a duty on
the society to furnish to a member, on receipt of request in writing and
on payment of prescribed fees, copies of any of the documents
enumerated in Sub-section (1). Section 154B-8 of the MCS Act provides
thus:
Page No. 10 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
154B-8. Rights of Members to inspect the documents.—
(1) Every Member of a society shall be entitled to inspect, free of
cost, at the society’s office during office hours, or any time fixed for the
purpose by the society, a copy of the Act, the rule and the bye-laws, the last
audited annual balance sheet, the profit and loss account, a list of the
members of the Committee, a register of members, the minutes of general
meetings, minutes of Committee meetings and those portions of the books
and records in which his transactions with the society have been recorded.
(2) A society shall furnish to a member, on request in writing and on
payment of such fees at such rate as may be decided by the Registrar, from
time to time, the copies of any documents mentioned in the foregoing sub-
section within forty-five days from the date of payment of such fees and
when the Society is assisted by the Government in the form of share
capital, loan and land, the said Society shall furnish such information
within thirty days from the date so requested by a member.
19) Under Section 154B-23 of the MCS Act, a person incurs
disqualification from being appointed, nominated, elected or co-opted as
a member of the committee in the circumstances enumerated therein.
One such circumstance, provided under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of
Section 154B-23, is where a person is held responsible under Section
154B-8(2) of the MCS Act. Thus, where a Society fails to furnish copies of
the documents as required under Section 154B-8(2), the concerned
member of the Committee, being responsible for such breach, incurs
disqualification from being appointed, nominated, elected or co-opted as
a member of the committee. Section 154B-23 of the MCS Act provides
thus:
154B-23. Disqualification of Committee and its Members.
(1) Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Act or the rules made
thereunder, in relation to the disqualification of being a Member of the
Committee, no person shall be eligible to be appointed, nominated, elected,
co-opted for being a Member of Committee,
(i) if he is a defaulter of any society, or
Page No. 11 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
(ii) if he carries on business of letting, subletting and selling of flats in
the housing society of which he is a Member, or
(iii) if he has been held responsible under section 79, 88, 154B-8(2)
or 154B-27 or for payment of cost of enquiry under section 85, or
(iv) if he has incurred any disqualification under this Act or the rules
made thereunder, or
(v) if he incurs any of the disqualification similar to that mentioned in
the provisions of clause (vii), (viii) or (ix) of clause (f) of sub-section (1)
of section 73CA.
(2) A Member, who has incurred any disqualification under sub-section (1),
shall cease to be a Member of Committee and his seat shall thereupon be
deemed to be vacant.
(3) A Member of a Committee who has ceased to be a Member thereof, on
account of having incurred disqualification under clause (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) of
sub-section (1), shall not be eligible to be re-elected, re-co-opted or re-
nominated as a Member of Committee for five years from the date on which he
or she has so ceased to be a Member of the Committee.
(4) A Member of a Committee who has ceased to be a Member thereof, on
account of having incurred disqualification other than disqualifications,
referred to in sub-section (3), shall, unless otherwise specifically provided in
this Act, be eligible to be re-elected, re-co-opted or re-nominated as a Member
of Committee as soon as such disqualification ceases to exist.
(emphasis and underling added)
20) In the present case, disqualification of Petitioner is ordered
on account of failure on the part of the society to furnish copies of
documents under sub-section (2) of Section 154B-8 of the MCS Act. As
observed above there is no dispute to the position that the Petitioner, on
behalf of the society, flatly refused to supply copies of demanded
documents to Respondent No.3. Therefore, non-supply of documents
under Section 154B-8(2) of the MCS Act is not a disputed fact. The issue
for consideration is whether in every case where failure to supply
documents under Section 154B-8(2) of the MCS Act is established,
Page No. 12 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
disqualification of member of committee is mandatory or whether
Registrar has the necessary discretion to pardon such lapse and reject
the prayer for disqualification? The plain reading of provisions of Section
154B-23 of the MCS Act would indicate that the same essentially deals
with the aspect of eligibility of a person to be appointed, nominated,
elected, co-opted for being a member of the managing committee. Thus,
a person who is held responsible under Section 154B-8 (2) of the Act
incurs disqualification under Section 154B-23(1). Under sub-section (2)
of Section 154B-23, such person who incurs disqualification, ceases to be
the member of the committee and the position held by him/her is
deemed to be vacated. Such disqualified member also incurs automatic
disqualification for being re-elected, re-co-opted or re-nominated as a
member of the committee for five years.
21) The true purport of provisions of Section 154B-23 of the
MCS Act is to declare the three consequences of (i) incurring of
disqualification, (ii) vacation of position and (iii) further disqualification
for 5 years if any of the four enumerated eventualities occur. Plain
reading of the provision shows that the same is declaratory in nature and
does not prescribe any elaborate procedure for adjudication by the
Registrar in respect of the disqualification incurred by the committee
member. Though the word ‘shall’ is used in sub-section (1) of Section
154B-23, the same applies in relation to acquiring of ineligibility and the
word ‘shall’ is not meant to be giving any mandate to the Registrar while
making an adjudication about occurrence of any of the four enumerated
circumstances. As a matter of fact, Section 154B-23 does not by itself
contemplate any adjudication by the Registrar. However, since the
Page No. 13 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
member accused of breaching the provisions of Section 154B-8(2) of the
Act may dispute incurring of disqualification and can refuse to vacate the
position, the Registrar needs to be approached for seeking a declaration
of disqualification under Section 154B-23. While issuing that
declaration, the Registrar needs to undertake adjudication of rival
claims, and this is how the adjudicatory process is involved even though
Section 154B-23, by itself, does not contemplate any such adjudicatory
process.
22) Since adjudication needs to be done by the Registrar while
issuing declaration of incurring of disqualification, the adjudication
essentially has to be about existence/occurrence of any of the four
enumerated circumstances in the facts of a given case. This is where
some leeway and flexibility need to be legitimately conceded in favour of
the Registrar while making the adjudication. He cannot be mechanical
and needs to apply his mind to the factual circumstances to decide
whether issuance of declaration of disqualification is warranted in the
facts and circumstances of the case. Provisions of Sections 154B-8 and
154B-23 are not intended at throwing out the managing committee
members every time there is a technical failure. Both provisions form
part of Chapter XIII-B, which related only to the housing societies. A
housing society is formed with the primary objective of managing the
affairs of the building by the residents themselves in a democratic
manner. It is residents who volunteer to manage the affairs of the society
at no renumeration for the efforts. On occupying a position, a sense of
power and importance may be generated, but the managing committee
members essentially volunteer to look after the affairs of the building.
Page No. 14 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
Since self-governance is the concept, it needs to be ensured that the
society is permitted to function in a democratic manner without
bringing in any external authorities like administrators, etc. Therefore,
while undertaking the process of adjudication under Section 154B-23,
the Registrar needs to exercise its discretion judiciously and prudently
and disqualification can be declared only when a deliberate refusal to
provide the documents enumerated in Section 154B-8 has occurred.
23) Circumstantial flexibility is not eschewed in the statutory
scheme of Section 154B-8 and Section 154B-23 of the MCS Act.
Therefore, the word ‘shall’ appearing in Section 154B-23 essentially
applies to the consequences of disqualification, meaning thereby that
once occurrence of one of the four eventualities is established, the
consequence of disqualification is automatic and mandatory. However,
this does not mean that the Registrar has no jurisdiction or discretion to
consider facts of the case for deciding whether the alleged eventuality
has indeed occurred or not. In relation to incurring of disqualification for
the responsibility under Section 154B-8(2), the Registrar can consider
the facts and circumstances of the case and then take a judicious
decision as to whether the member concerned can be held responsible
under that Section.
24) Since the Registrar exercises adjudicatory powers under
Section 154B-23 of the MCS Act, the expression ‘ if he has been held
’ used in clause (iii) of sub-section (1) thereof would mean
responsible
that the Registrar will adjudicate whether the person whose
disqualification is sought is ‘responsible’ for failing to provide the
Page No. 15 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
documents under Section 154B-8(2) to an extent that his disqualification
must be declared. While adjudicating this ‘responsibility’ he can take
into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, rather than
acting mechanically and in a post office like manner and then decide
whether the person accused of breaching provisions of Section 154B-8(2)
needs to be disqualified or not. Fact specific adjudication is the key and
not a mere mechanical acting.
25) In Shahid Tamboli (supra) a coordinate bench of this Court
has considered the interplay between provisions of Section 154B-8(2)
and Section 154B-23 of the MCS Act. This Court has considered the
question as to whether the use of the word ‘shall’ in Section 154B-23 of
the MCS Act makes it mandatory for the Registrar to order
disqualification in every case where a lapse in furnishing documents
under Section 154B-8(2) of the Act is established. This Court has held
that the mere use of the word ‘shall’ in Section 154B-23 of the Act is not,
by itself, decisive of the mandatory nature of the provision. This Court
has held in paragraph 21 as under:-
21) It is well recognized that the mere use of the word ‘shall’ is not of
decisive significance to cloth mandatory character to a provision. To
decipher the character of a provision, both text and context of the
relevant provision deserve to be noted. The Court has to ascertain the
legislative object and the consequences which the legislature has
prescribed in the event of breach. The principles which govern the
determination of mandatory or directory character of a provision are
well-recognized.
26) In Shahid Tamboli this Court also consider the issue as to
whether absence of expression "without any reasonable or justifiable
Page No. 16 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
cause" appearing in Section 154B-8 or 154B-23 made disqualification
automatic and held in paragraphs 28 and 31 of the judgment as under:-
28) The aspect of imperativeness of the time limit cannot be
determined de hors the context. In a deserving case, where the
disqualification is ordered for failure to observe the time limit of 45
days strictly, the mandatory character of the time limit may be
justifiably delved into. Moreover, the fact that immediately after the
expiry of the period stipulated for the supply of documents under
Section 154B-8(2), disqualification is not automatic, cannot be lost
sight of. The disqualification is incurred only when the Registrar fastens
liability on the member of the committee for default in supply of the
copies under Section 154B-8 (2) of the Act, 1960. Inevitably, the inquiry
is warranted and required to be held (as in the instant case). That
provides an opportunity to the defaulting society and Committee
members to demonstrate that the default was neither intentional nor
there was lack of bona fide. Undoubtedly, the expression “without any
reasonable or justifiable cause” does not find place either in Sections
154B-8 or 154B-23. Yet, while fastening the responsibility for the
default so as to entail the consequence of disqualification, that aspect
ought to enter determination by the Registrar.
31) Even where a provision is couched in a mandatory form if it could
be shown that a party has done all that, which was within its powers,
noncompliance may not result in an irretrievable hardship as the party
has, in essence, ensured substantial compliance. In such an eventuality,
where the court is satisfied that a party has made a substantial
compliance in furtherance of the legislative object, the Court may
relieve a party of the hardship which a minor or technical infraction
would otherwise entail.
27) The issue of interplay between provisions of Section 154B-8
and 154B-23 again arose for consideration before coordinate bench of
this Court in Nair Pushpa Sureshkumar (supra) in which this Court held
in paragraph 26 of the judgment as under:-
26. For deciding how long a person should be disqualified under Section
154B-23, the Registrar must follow clear and fair standards. The law
gives the power, but the use of that power must be guided by common
sense and the need to protect the Society. The following points are
important.
Page No. 17 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
(i) Nature of the breach
The Registrar must see what exactly the committee member has done
wrong. If the wrong involves hiding documents, blocking transparency
or ignoring lawful directions, it becomes more serious. When a
member’s conduct directly affects another member’s right to get
documents under Section 154B-8, stricter action becomes necessary.
(ii) Length of the misconduct
The Registrar must see how long the misconduct continued. A small
mistake corrected quickly is one thing. A delay of several months or
refusal even after reminders is quite different and more serious.
(iii) Repeated requests and warnings
If a member keeps asking for documents in writing and the Society does
nothing, it shows that the committee knowingly ignored its duty. If the
Society still fails to act even after the Registrar passes orders, it
strengthens the case for a longer disqualification.
(iv) Purpose or effect of the non-compliance
The Registrar must see whether the refusal to give documents might
have been to hide wrongdoing, financial loss or misuse of power. If the
misconduct affects the honest functioning of the Society, stronger
action is justified.
(v) Past behaviour of the committee member
If the member has earlier been found responsible for wrongdoing under
Sections 79, 88, 154B-8(2) or 154B-27, or if a recovery certificate has
already been issued, it shows a pattern of poor management. Repeat
violations call for stricter punishment.
(vi) Harm caused to the Society
The Registrar must consider whether the misconduct caused financial
loss, confusion in the Society’s working or loss of trust among
members. Greater harm demands a disqualification that fits the
seriousness of the situation.
(vii) Response of the committee member
The Registrar should see whether the member offered a timely
explanation or took steps to correct the mistake. A member who ignores
the law for months and later gives technical excuses cannot ask for
leniency
(ix) Cooperation during proceedings
If the member did not produce documents during inquiry or did not
assist the process, it shows that he is not fit to continue on the
Committee. Lack of cooperation may justify the maximum
disqualification.
Page No. 18 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
(x) Need to protect the Society
The main goal is to protect the Society and its members from further
harm. If the Registrar finds that allowing such a member to continue
would put the Society at risk, a full fiveyear disqualification may be
required.
(xi) Proportionality
Although the law provides for a five-year disqualification, the Registrar
must decide a period that matches the actual misconduct. Small and
unintentional mistakes may call for a shorter period. Serious and
deliberate wrongdoing may justify the full term
28) This Court further held in Nair Pushpa Sureshkumar that it
is not mandatory to disqualify member of managing committee for five
years and also that disqualifying the entire managing committee for
breach of provisions of Section 154B-8(2) is not warranted.
29) In Shashikant M. Ramane , this Court has held that
substantial compliance with provisions of Section 154B-8(2) can avoid
disqualification. In Shashikant M. Ramane , this Court held in
paragraphs- 23, 24 and 25 of the judgment as under:-
23. There is thus admitted failure on the part of the Petitioners to
comply with the provisions of Section 154B-8(2) of the MCS Act within
the stipulated time limit. Respondent No.4 had appended cheques of
th th
Rs.200/- with both requisitions submitted on 5 and 8 October 2023.
Therefore, it was incumbent upon Petitioners to supply demanded
th th
documents within a period of 45 days from 5 and 8 October 2023.
The Petitioners, however, deliberately avoided to supply the demanded
documents and whiled away time. They made the Deputy Registrar
write two letters dated 20 November 2023 and 19 December 2023. The
refusal to supply demanded documents made the Deputy Registrar
issue directions under Section 154B-27(1) on 6 February 2024 and pass
an order under Section 154B-27(2) on 15 March 2024. It is only after
the Deputy Registrar wrote four times to the society that finally
disqualification proceedings were initiated against the Petitioners. This
Court has repeatedly highlighted the importance of making available
the records of the society to the members. In Shahid Tamboli (supra),
Page No. 19 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
this Court has underscored the importance of provisions of S.154(B-8)
(ii). It has held in paras-27, 28 and 31 as under:
xxx
24. Though a substantial compliance with the provisions of Section
154B-8(2) can avoid disqualification, again in the present case, I am
unable to record a finding that there is even substantial compliance
with the provisions of Section 154B-8(2) on the part of the Petitioners.
The case does not involve insignificant delay in supply of the demanded
documents. On the other hand, the case involves deliberate refusal to
furnish the demanded documents. The Petitioners have made the
Deputy Registrar to repeatedly intervene and issue letters to the
society. The society could have simply handed over copies of the
demanded documents to Respondent No.4 rather than supplying the
same belatedly to the office of the Deputy Registrar on 18 January 2024
and 13 March 2024. There is no evidence on record to indicate that the
documents were earlier sought to be furnished to Respondent No.4 or
that he refused to accept the same. This Court has held in Mahesh
Madhukar Bhartiya vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative
6
Societies, Mumbai and Ors. that CD containing video recording of
AGM/SGM is not one of the enumerated documents under Section
154B-8(1) and therefore non-supply of the same cannot incur
disqualification under Section 154B-23(1)(iii). However, in the present
case, in addition to video recording, Respondent No.4 had also
demanded minutes of 13 Management Committee meetings. Non-
supply of those minutes definitely amounts to failure within the
meaning of Section 154B-8(2) of the Act. In my view therefore,
declaration of incurring of disqualification of the Petitioners made by
the Deputy Registrar as confirmed by the Joint Registrar and the
Hon’ble Minister appears to be in order.
25. Ordinarily, this Court would have been loath in confirming the
disqualification order in respect of a cooperative housing society, if the
case was to involve some delay in furnishing the demanded documents.
The objective behind Section 154B-8 is to ensure that the affairs of the
society are conducted in transparent manner. Merely because the
society involved is a cooperative housing society, the same does not
mean that the same can governed without any regard to the statutory
provisions. It is unfortunate that the Petitioners had reservation about
sharing minutes of managing committee to their own committee
member. Respondent No. 4 had demanded minutes of the managing
committee meetings complaining that he had not received any notice in
respect of most of the meetings. It appears that some vital decisions
6
Writ Petition No. 16171 of 2025 decided on 25 June 2026
Page No. 20 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
have been taken in the meetings by the managing committee, which is
clear from the following averments in the Reply:
(A) I have received Notices for monthly meetings of the
Management Committee of the Respondent No.3 society
through WhatsApp. In none of the Notice the agenda of the
meeting is mentioned, in violation of Bye-law No. 132 of the
bye-laws of the society. Every notice simply says,"All important
subjects will be discussed". Hereto annexed and marked as
EXHIBIT R 14- COLLY are the Screen Shots of Notices for
monthly meetings of the Management Committee of the
Respondent No. 3 society through Whats App.
(B) The present Management Committee, in its first monthly
meeting held on 8th September 2022 has enhanced the limit for
cash on hand, which the secretary may retain in his personal
custody, at the close of the day, for petty expenses, from
Rs.5000/- to 10000/-, in violation of Bye-law No. 144 of the bye-
laws of the society. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT R-
15 is the copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Management
Committee, dated the 08/09/2022. The Present Management
Committee never got the same approved in the Annual General
Meeting, may be for concealing the same from the members of
the Respondent No. 3 society. Even I became aware of the same
only after I received the Minutes of the meetings of the
Management Committee on 15th October 2024. In the Audit
Reports for the years 2022-2023, 2023-2024 and 2024-2025, the
Auditor has pointed out this violation and advised the
Management Committee of the Respondent No. 3 society to
bring down limit of cash in hand within the statutory limit.
However, the Management Committee has not paid any heed to
the Reports of the Auditor. Hereto annexed and marked as
EXHIBIT R-16-COLLY are the copies of 3 Letters of Auditor of
the Respondent No 3 society together with the violations of the
provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-Laws of the Respondent
No.3 society, pointed by him in Audit Reports for the years 2022-
2023, 2023-2024 and 2024-2025.
Considering the above position, it is difficult to conclude that
Respondent No. 4 had demanded documents only for creating a ground
for disqualification of the Petitioners.
30) Thus, disqualification of a member of managing committee
is not automatic once it is found that there is breach of provisions of
Section 154B-8(2) of the MCS Act. The Registrar cannot act mechanically
Page No. 21 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
while deciding the issue of disqualification and is required to take into
consideration the nature of the breach, the duration and extent of the
misconduct, as well as the purpose and the effect of the non-compliance,
amongst other relevant factors. The Registrar is required to consider the
reasons for which the documents were denied to a member. If it is found
that there was a deliberate act on the part of a Managing Committee
member in refusing to provide inspection or furnish copies of the
demanded documents, with the object of concealing any wrongdoing,
financial irregularity, loss or misuse of power, the Registrar must direct
disqualification of such managing committee member. However, if there
is any genuine difficulty in furnishing the documents, the Registrar is
not precluded from taking into consideration the justification put forth
by the concerned managing committee member while opposing the
proposed disqualification. In short, the Registrar cannot act
mechanically and proceed to disqualify a member of the managing
committee merely because the documents demanded under Section
154B-8(2) of the MCS Act have not been furnished.
31) Having considered the statutory scheme of provisions of
Sections 154B-8 and 154B-23 of the MCS Act, I now proceed to consider
whether disqualification of Petitioner and that too for a period of five
years was warranted. In the present case, Petitioner refused to supply
copies of demanded documents to Respondent No. 3 by taking an
emphatic stand that he is not the member of the society. Mr. Bayas has
sought to highlight the position that both Petitioner and Respondent No.
3 secured membership of the society through common order dated 23
March 2015 passed by the Deputy Registrar. It appears that society had
Page No. 22 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
challenged order dated 23 March 2015 before Divisional Joint Registrar
and the revision was dismissed by order dated 29 July 2019. Before
Divisional Joint Registrar also Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 jointly
defended grant of membership. It is therefore, sought to be suggested by
Mr. Bayas that Petitioner deliberately took a false defence of Respondent
No. 3 not being a member despite being fully aware of the fact that he
was granted membership alongwith Petitioner. The argument appears to
be attractive in the fresh blush, but is inconvincible on a deeper scrutiny.
The reasons which compelled the Petitioner to raise the defence that
Respondent No. 3 was not a member of the Society needs to be duly
appreciated. True it is that Petitioner as well as Respondent No. 3 were
being denied membership of the society and they were required to file a
common Appeal No. 1286 of 2015 under Section 22 (2) of the MCS before
the Deputy Registrar. In that Appeal Respondent No. 3 was Appellant
No. 34 whereas Petitioner was Appellant No. 50. The Appeal was allowed
by common order dated 23 March 2015 declaring deemed membership in
their favor under Section 22(2) of the MCS Act. The order dated 23 March
2015 was upheld in revision by the Divisional Joint Registrar vide order
dated 29 July 2019. Thus, as on 29 July 2019 Petitioner was possibly fully
aware of the fact that deemed membership was granted in favour of
Respondent No. 3. Ordinarily therefore, Petitioner could not have feigned
ignorance about grant of membership to Respondent No. 3. However
certain subsequent events occurred creating doubts about membership
of Respondent No. 3. It would be necessary to consider those events.
32) Since no elections were held for electing managing
committee of the society for a considerable period of time, an auditor
Page No. 23 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
was appointed to inspect the records of the society by order dated 14
December 2015. The auditor submitted his detail report recommending
removal of charge of the society from the chief promoter of Ishan Society
and for appointment of administrative committee. Accordingly, the
Deputy Registrar appointed three-member administrative committee by
order dated 5 September 2019, which was confirmed in Appeal by the
Divisional Joint Registrar and in revision by the Hon'ble Minister.
33) The administrative committee took steps for holding
elections of the society. It appears that Mr. R. S. Bhujbal, who was the
earlier Auditor and the Chairman of administrative committee submitted
a report dated 21 November 2021 pointing out that there were 52
persons who had failed to pay amount toward lease and that therefore
they should not be granted membership of the society. He prepared list
of only 143 members which did not include the names of 52 members.
The name of Respondent No. 3 was in the 52 excluded persons. The
elections were thereafter held on 14 November 2021 on the basis of list
of members prepared by the administrative committee. Petitioner and
other committee members were elected in that election and the
Petitioner was further elected as the Chairman of Ishan Society.
34) Within 14 days of holding of elections on 14 November
2021, Respondent No. 3 sent letter dated 29 November 2021 demanding
various documents. At that time the managing committee elected vide
election dated 14 November 2021 was yet to have access to the entire
records of the society. The Petitioner, in his capacity as chairman of the
society, was seized of the report of Mr. Bhujbal as well as of the list of
Page No. 24 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
members, which did not contain name of Respondent No. 3. Based on
that report and the list, Petitioner believed that Respondent No. 3 is not
admitted into membership of the society on account of non-payment of
any amounts for the concerned plot allotted to him. It is on account of
this peculiar situation that Petitioner gave reply dated 17 December 2021
to the Deputy Registrar taking an emphatic stand that since Respondent
No. 3 is not a member of the society, he cannot be supplied any of the
demanded document.
35) Thus, refusal to supply documents by Petitioner is not
deliberate but stems out of a belief created on account of report of the
Auditor as well as list of members prepared for elections, which did not
include the name of Respondent No. 3. Therefore, though the Petitioner
and Respondent No. 3 had secured deemed membership of the society
vide orders passed by the Dy. Registrar and Divisional Joint Registrar, the
situation was fluid at the time of sending of requisition for documents by
the Respondent No. 3. Therefore, it cannot be held that Petitioner had
any ill motive in denying the documents to Respondent No. 3. In my
view, therefore, the reason why Petitioner did not supply the demanded
documents to Respondent No. 3 needs to be borne in mind rather than
mechanically ordering his disqualification.
36) Though, Petitioner no longer maintains the position that
Respondent No. 3 is not a member of the society, he did believe so on 17
December 2021 when he refused to supply the demanded documents.
Petitioner thus genuinely felt that Respondent No.3 is not the member of
the society and on this account, he rejected the demand for supply of
Page No. 25 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
documents. The stand taken by Petitioner is not deliberate as sought to
be canvassed by Respondent No.3. Though, both Petitioner and
Respondent No.3 secured deemed membership under common orders
passed by the Deputy Registrar and Divisional Joint Registrar, the
subsequent events, which occurred later did create an impression in the
mind of the Petitioner that Respondent No. 3 may not be the member of
the society.
37) In the facts of the present case, Petitioner did not have any
oblique motive in refusing to supply the demanded documents to
Respondent No.3. The refusal on his part was owing to his belief that
Respondent No.3 is not a member of the society and this belief got
created on account of the list of members prepared by the then
auditor/committee of administrators. It is the matter of fact that the
demanded documents have been supplied to Respondent No.3
subsequently. In my view therefore, the peculiar facts of the present case
need to be appreciated and it is difficult to conclude that Petitioner
deliberately did not supply the demanded documents to Respondent
No.3. In my view, therefore, the present case fits into the ambit of those
rare cases, where mitigating circumstances are required to be taken into
consideration for the purpose of deciding the issue as to whether
member of the managing committee deserves to be disqualified or not.
38) Mr. Bayas has strenuously relied on the judgment of this
Court in Shashikant M Ramane in support of his contention that this
Court has held that deliberate withholding of documents attracts
disqualification. According to him the ratio of the judgment squarely
Page No. 26 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
applies to the facts of the present case. No doubt, the ratio of the
judgment centers around the importance of transparency, statutory
compliance, and the consequences of withholding cooperative
housing society records. Though it is held in Shashikant M Ramane
that substantial compliance with provisions of Section 154B-8 can avoid
disqualification, this Court still upheld the order of disqualification after
noticing that minutes of the meetings involving taking of vital decisions
were deliberately withheld from the member. The facts of that case are
entirely distinguishable, and ratio thereof would have no application
here.
39) Also, of relevance is the fact that the disqualification was
first ordered by the Deputy Registrar on 14 July 2022, the disqualification
was for five long years and the same would otherwise come to an end on
14 July 2027. Even if Petitioner is technically held guilty of violation of
provisions of Section 154B-8(2) of the MCS Act, still his disqualification
for five years is clearly not warranted. Even if the period of
disqualification is to be reduced, the same would be over by now. This
Court is otherwise not convinced that Petitioner deserves to be
disqualified because he took a stand that Respondent No.3 is not a
member of the society while not supplying the copies of the documents.
40) As observed above, this Court has stayed the disqualification
by order dated 6 March 2025. While admitting the Petition on 7 April
2025, this Court has recorded following prima-facie findings in
paragraphs 2 to 7 as under:
Page No. 27 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
2. Prima facie, it appears that the action of disqualification has been
initiated against the petitioner owing to the alleged nonsupply of
certain documents sought from him. Upon perusal of the material
placed on record, it is evident that though the respondent has been able
to establish that the members of the society had sought certain
documents from the petitioner, in my considered opinion, mere non-
furnishing of documents, without there being any further act or
omission suggestive of mala fide intent, gross negligence, or breach of
fiduciary duty, cannot, by itself, be construed as sufficient ground to
invoke the drastic consequence of disqualification of an elected
member of the Managing Committee.
3. It is trite law that the right to hold an elected office is a valuable right
conferred by statute, and any curtailment thereof must be strictly
construed. A disqualification from elected office must be based on clear
and cogent material, and that penal consequences should not ensue
from mere technical or trivial violations.
4. In the present case, what falls for determination is whether a mere
technical violation, i.e., the failure to furnish certain documents,
without any accompanying element of deliberate defiance, misfeasance,
or breach of trust, would ipso facto attract the stringent consequence of
disqualification for a period of five years under the relevant statutory
provisions. It must be noted that such disqualification would not only
remove the petitioner from his current tenure but would also
incapacitate him from contesting elections for the next term, thereby
having far-reaching civil consequences.
5. The disqualification provisions must be interpreted strictly, and
unless the alleged act falls squarely within the statutory parameters
prescribed for disqualification, an elected representative cannot be
divested of his office.
6. Moreover, the doctrine of proportionality also mandates that
administrative action must not be disproportionate to the gravity of the
alleged misconduct. In the facts of the present case, imposing a
disqualification for five years, which exceeds the normal tenure of the
elected Managing Committee, merely on account of non-supply of
documents, without anything more, appears to be grossly
disproportionate.
7. Hence, in light of the foregoing discussion, the question that arises
for consideration is whether mere failure to furnish documents, without
more, would warrant the grave consequence of disqualification for a
period of five years under the applicable statutory framework.
Page No. 28 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Renuka WP NO. 15358 OF 2023
41) Thus, on account of earlier order of remand and the interim
orders passed by this Court, though the disqualification was initially
ordered on 14 July 2022, the same has not taken effect for the last four
long years. Petitioner is democratically elected on the committee and his
ouster for failure to supply documents is not warranted when he
genuinely believed that Respondent No. 3 may not be a legitimate
member of the society capable of demanding copies of documents as a
matter of right.
42) The impugned orders dated 12 October 2023 and 30 January
2023 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar and the Deputy Registrar
are indefensible in the facts of the present case. Therefore the
disqualification of the Petitioner deserves to be set aside when he is not
found guilty of deliberate violation of provisions of Section 154B-8 of the
MCS Act.
43) Petition accordingly succeeds. Order dated 12 October 2023
passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar and order dated 30 January 2023
passed by the Deputy Registrar are set aside.
44) Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. Rule is made
absolute . There shall be no order as to costs.
45) In view of the disposal of the Petition, nothing would
survive in the Interim Application and the same is also disposed of.
RENUKA
SHANKARSINHA
THAKUR
Digitally signed by
RENUKA SHANKARSINHA
THAKUR
Date: 2026.11.03 19:01:10
+0530
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Page No. 29 of 29
3 November 2026
Uploaded on - 03/11/2026 Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 19:20:36
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)