Mr. Vivekanand Shridhar Pednekar vs The State Of Goa, Through Its Chief Secretary,

2026:BHC-GOA:1107-DB
17- WP -2347-2025( F )
2026:BHC-GOA:1107-DB

Niti
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO.2347 OF 2025(F)
Mr. Vivekanand Shridhar Pednekar,
S/o. Shridhar Pednekar,
Indian National, Aged 35 years,
R/o. B-402, Sairaj Residency Coop.
Hsg. Maint. Society Ltd.,
Siolim, Bardez-Goa.

….PETITIONER
Versus

1. The State of Goa,
Through its Chief Secretary,
Porvorim Goa.

2. The Registrar,
Registrar of Co-operative Housing
th th
Societies, 4 & 5 Floor, Sahakar
Sankul, Patto Centre, Panaji, Goa.

3. The Asst. Registrar,
Registrar of Co-operative Housing
st
Societies, North Zone, 1 Floor,
Government Building Complex,
Mapusa, Bardez-Goa.

4. Sairaj Residency Co-operative
Maintenance Society Ltd.,
Portawaddo, Siolim, Goa.

5. Arden D’Souza
R/o. A-202, Sairaj Residency Coop.
Hsg. Maint. Society Ltd. Siolim,
Bardez-Goa.

6. Francisco William,

13
1

::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2026 21:09:38 :::

17- WP -2347-2025( F )

R/o. B-401, Sairaj Residency Coop.
Hsg. Maint. Society Ltd. Siolim,
Bardez-Goa.

7. Shiral S. Monteiro
R/o. A-103, Sairaj Residency Coop.
Hsg. Maint. Society Ltd. Siolim,
Bardez-Goa.

…. RESPONDENTS
Mr. Vibhav Amonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Manish Salkar, Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1
to 3.
Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 7.

CORAM : VALMIKI MENEZES &
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

th
DATE : 9 JUNE 2026

:
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Vibhav Amonkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner,
Mr Manish Salkar, learned Government Advocate for Respondent
Nos.1 to 3 and Mr Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel for
Respondent Nos.4 to 7.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent
of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties.
3.
The Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,
challenging the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by Respondent No.3, the
Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Housing Societies, North Zone,
Goa, under Section 123A of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2001

13
2

::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2026 21:09:38 :::

17- WP -2347-2025( F )

শড়the Aǉtঢ় ǟor shortষ . The Petitioner has also sought a direction to
Respondent No.3 to grant a personal hearing in the subject matter and
to set aside the consequential actions initiated against him.
4.
The factual matrix giving rise to the present Petition reveals that
the Petitioner, who was functioning as Chairman of Respondent No.4 -
Co-operative Housing Society, came across a declaration on the notice
board of the Society, wherein Respondent No.5 was declared as elected
Chairman and Respondent Nos.6 and 7 were declared as elected
Secretary and Treasurer, respectively. It is the contention of the
Petitioner that the said declarations and the entire election process
culminating therein were wholly illegal and contrary to the provisions of
the Goa Co-operative Societies Act and Rules thereunder.
5. The Petitioner asserts that the Managing Committee appointed
by the competent Authority was initially to continue for a specified
tenure, and that, before the expiry of the tenure, attempts were made to
hold fresh elections. However, owing to inadequate response from the
members, by not submitting sufficient nomination forms, the said
election process could not be completed. According to the Petitioner,
only two nomination forms were received, which were insufficient for
constituting the new Managing Committee. Consequently, the existing
Committee continued to function and, therefore, subsequent
resolutions were passed by holding General Body Meetings and Special
General Body Meetings. It is further the case of the Petitioner that the

13
3

::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2026 21:09:38 :::

17- WP -2347-2025( F )

Petitioner ঢ়s Committee continued till the fresh elections were to be held
and, therefore, a proposal for the constitution of a Committee was
forwarded to the Authorities and that Respondent No.5 had also
participated in several meetings where decisions concerning future
elections were taken by the consent of the members.
6. The Petitioner further contends that Respondent No.5
unilaterally appointed a Returning Officer without any valid resolution
to the Society and that the entire election process thereafter was
conducted without any authority of law. According to the Petitioner,
the Returning Officer acted without jurisdiction and ultimately declared
Respondent Nos.5 to 7 as Office Bearers of the Society without
following any democratic process or procedure of law. Aggrieved
thereby, the Petitioner preferred proceedings before the Co-operative
Tribunal challenging the entire election process and election results.
Since the proceedings were filed beyond the limitation, a separate
application for condonation of delay was also preferred along with the
main proceedings before the Tribunal. The Tribunal ultimately rejected
the application for condonation of delay and, consequently, the said
rejection amounted to rejection of the main appeal/proceedings in itself.
Thus, the entire challenge of the Petitioner to the election process, as well
as to the result of the election of the newly elected Managing Committee,
failed.

13
4

::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2026 21:09:38 :::

17- WP -2347-2025( F )

7.
It is further submitted by the Petitioner that during the
pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, Respondent No.3
issued a notice under Section 123A of the Act calling upon the Petitioner
to explain as to why action should not be initiated against the Petitioner
for failure to hand over the charge and records to the newly elected
Managing Committee. The Petitioner further submits that on receiving
the said show cause notice, he immediately submitted his reply
contending that the election itself was under challenge and that the
proceedings under Section 123A required to be dropped as being
premature. Respondent No.3, however, by his communication,
informed the Petitioner that there is no stay granted to the election
process or to the election results by the Tribunal and, hence, the
Petitioner was directed by Respondent No.3 to hand over the records to
the newly elected Managing Committee. Subsequent communications
were also issued by Respondent No.3, requiring compliance of Section
123A, thereby handing over the records by the Petitioner to the newly
elected Managing Committee. Ultimately, as the records were not
handed over by the Petitioner, Respondent No.3 passed an order dated
17.06.2025 imposing a penalty upon the Petitioner at the rate prescribed
under Section 123A of the Act for failure to hand over the charge and
the society records to the newly elected Managing Committee.
8. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently
contended that the election process itself was illegal and, therefore,
Respondent No.3 ought not to have acted upon the alleged election

13
5

::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2026 21:09:38 :::

17- WP -2347-2025( F )

results. He submitted that once the election dispute was pending before
the Co-operative Tribunal, prudence demanded that Respondent No.3
awaits the outcome of the challenge before directing transfer of charge
and handing over of records. He further submitted that if at all the
Petitioner would have handed over the charge and the records to the
newly elected Managing Committee, his entire challenge before the
Tribunal would have become infructuous, for the reason that handing
over the charge and the records would by itself amount to acceptance of
the election results. He further submitted that the Petitioner had
throughout acted bonafide and had repeatedly informed Respondent
No.3 of the pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal. Thus,
according to the learned Counsel, the action initiated by Respondent
No.3 under Section 123A of the Act was illegal and premature.

9. The learned Counsel further argued that the Petitioner had
made sincere attempts to comply with the directions issued by
Respondent No.3. According to him, the records were tendered before
Respondent No.3, and it was Respondent No.3 who returned the same
to the Petitioner, addressing a communication to the said effect. He
further argued that there was no deliberate non-compliance on the part
of the Petitioner, but it was for a bonafide cause that a litigation was
pending before an appropriate forum and, hence, the records were not
handed over. It was also contended that the impugned order was passed
without granting an effective hearing and in breach of principles of
natural justice. In support of the arguments about violation of the

13
6

::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2026 21:09:38 :::

17- WP -2347-2025( F )

principles of natural justice, the learned Counsel relied upon the
Mangilal V/s.
decisions o ǟ the Hoǿঢ়ǈle SupreǾe Court iǿ the ǉase oǟ
1
State of M.P. and Krishnadatt Awasthy V/s. State of Madhya
2
Pradesh and Ors. .
10.
Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 supported the impugned order. He submitted
that Section 123A creates a mandatory statutory obligation to hand over
the charge and records to the newly elected Committee, and such
obligation cannot be suspended merely because the outgoing Office
Bearer chooses to challenge the election. It was argued that, admittedly,
no stay order was operating in favour of the Petitioner and, therefore, the
newly elected Committee was entitled to assume the charge. Learned
Government Advocate further submitted that the replies furnished by
the Petitioner did not disclose any sufficient cause as contemplated
under Section 123A and merely reflected an attempt to retain control
over the records of the Society. It was, therefore, submitted that action
under Section 123A was perfectly justified.
11.
Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the
material placed on record, we find no merit in the principal challenge
raised by the Petitioner. Before we proceed to decide the matter on

1
(2004) 2 SCC 447
2
(2025) 7 SCC 545

13
7

::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2026 21:09:38 :::

17- WP -2347-2025( F )

merits, we would like to consider the scope and mandate of Section 123A
of the Act, which reads as under:
श 123A. Handing over records and property to new
Chairman on election.- (1) On the election of a new Board of
Directors and its Chairman, the retiring Chairman in whose
place the new Chairman is elected, shall hand over charge of the
office and all papers and property, if any, of the society in his
possession or any officer thereof, to the new Chairman of the Board
of Directors [immediately after assuming office by him].

(2) If the retiring Chairman fails or refuses to hand over charge,
or to hand over the papers and property of the society as aforesaid,
the Registrar, or any person authorised by him in this behalf, may,
by order in writing, direct him to forthwith handover such charge
and property.

(3) If the retiring Chairman to whom a direction has been issued
under sub-section (2) without sufficient cause fails to comply with
such direction, he shall be liable to pay fine of rupees two thousand
per day of delay in handing over of charge to the newly elected
Chairman from the date of issuance of directions by the Registrar
till the actual date of handover of charge. Such fine shall not be
paid from the funds of the society but shall be recovered from the
defaulting retired Chairman];

(4) The retiring Chairman shall pay such fine so payable under
sub-section (3) to the Registrar by way of challan in the
Government treasury and a self-attested copy of the receipt of the
paid challan shall be submitted to the Registrar within thirty days
of handing over the charge.

(5) On failure of the retiring chairman to pay fine within the time
limit specified under sub-section (4), the same shall without
prejudice to any other mode of recovery, be recoverable as an
arrears of land revenue.

13
8

::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2026 21:09:38 :::

17- WP -2347-2025( F )

(6) The provisions of sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) shall mutatis
mutandis apply in case, the newly elected/nominated Chairman,
Administrator or any other Office bearer, as the case may be,
without sufficient cause, fails to take over custody of books, records,
cash, security and other property belonging to a co-operative
society. ष
12.
A perusal of Section 123A of the Act, in its entirety, shows that
the provision has been enacted with the avowed object of ensuring
seamless transition of the management of co-operative Societies. The
provision mandates that, upon cessation of office, the outgoing office
bearer shall hand over charge, records, books, documents and properties
of the Society to the person or Committee legally entitled to receive the
same. The language employed in Section 123A by the legislature leaves
no room for discretion. The obligation is mandatory, and most
importantly, the obligation is immediate with the sole object that the
functioning of the Society should not be hampered or stalled and should
effectively continue.
13.
The entire edifice of the Petitio ǿerঢ়s ǉase proǉeeds oǿ the preǾise
that since the election was under challenge, he was justified in retaining
custody of the records. Such a contention cannot be accepted. Mere
institution of election proceedings does not obliterate the election nor
suspend its operation. Unless a competent forum grants interim
protection or sets aside the election, the elected committee remains
entitled to function. Admittedly, in the present case, no such interim
order was ever granted in favour of the Petitioner. On the contrary,

13
9

::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2026 21:09:38 :::

17- WP -2347-2025( F )

records show that Respondent No.3 specifically informed the Petitioner
that no stay has been granted by the Tribunal and, therefore, compliance
of the directions issued by the Petitioner is the statutory requirement and
not optional.
14.
We have perused the replies submitted by the Petitioner and we
find that the Petitioner has failed to disclose any sufficient cause within
the meaning of Section 123A. The Petitioner consistently relied only
upon the pendency of the election proceedings. Such a plea cannot
constitute sufficient cause under the statute. Acceptance of such a
contention would frustrate the very purpose and object of Section 123A
of the Act and permit outgoing office bearers to indefinitely withhold
records by merely challenging an election.
15. The contention of the Petitioner that he had handed over the
records to Respondent No.3 also deserves to be rejected. Section
123A(1) clearly mandates that the retiring Chairman, in whose place the
new Chairman is elected, shall hand over charge of the office and all
papers and property, if any, of the Society in his possession or any Officer
thereof to the new Chairman of the Board of Directors immediately after
assuming the office by him. Thus, Section 123A does not contemplate
delivery of records to the office of the Assistant Registrar. The statutory
obligation is to hand over charge and records to the person or Committee
legally entitled to receive them. In the present case, the persons legally
entitled to receive such records were the members of the newly elected

13
10

::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2026 21:09:38 :::

17- WP -2347-2025( F )

Managing Committee. Therefore, forwarding documents to
Respondent No.3 would never amount to compliance with the statutory
mandate of Section 123A of the Act. Consequently, the communication
relied upon by the Petitioner, including the communication dated
14.05.2025, cannot absolve him of the liability under Section 123A.
16. The submission vehemently advanced by the learned Counsel
for the Petitioner based on the principle of natural justice also does not
persuade us to interfere with the impugned order in its entirety. The
Petitioner was repeatedly called upon to explain his conduct and, in fact,
had submitted detailed replies from time to time to the office of
Respondent No.3. The substance of his defence was therefore before the
Respondent No.3 at all times when the direction as contemplated under
Section 123A of the Act was issued by Respondent No.3. However,
while examining the quantum and period of penalty, we find it necessary
that the liability be confined to the period during which the Petitioner
continued to be in non-compliance of the statutory directions. Only to
this extent, we deem it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order
of the Respondent No.3. The reliance of the Petitioner on the Apex
Court judgments is, therefore, absolutely misplaced.

17. The records suggest that the communication of Respondent
No. ࢴ dated ࢳࢳ.ࢱࢵ.ࢳࢱࢳࢶ Ǡraǿted the Petitioǿer seΚeǿ daysঢ় tiǾe to haǿd
over the charge and the records to the newly elected Committee in
accordance with Section 123A of the Act. The Petitioner admittedly

13
11

::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2026 21:09:38 :::

17- WP -2347-2025( F )

failed to do so. Equally, there is no material on record to show that the
Petitioner ever handed charge and records to the newly elected
Committee thereafter, till this Court, in the present Writ Petition,
intervened and directed the Petitioner to hand over the records to the
newly elected office bearers of the Respondent No.4 – Society.
Furthermore, we find that the present Petition itself came to be
instituted before this Court on 03.09.2025 while continuing to dispute
the authority of the newly elected Committee. In such circumstances,
the period of default cannot be curtailed merely because Petitioner chose
to forward records to Respondent No.3. The contention of the
Petitioner that the period be restricted till 14.05.2025, the date on which
the Petitioner forwarded the records to the office of Respondent No.3,
has to be therefore rejected as such an act of the Petitioner does not satisfy
the statutory requirement under Section 123A of the Act.
18.
Therefore, while the finding recorded by Respondent No.3
re ǠardiǿǠ the Petitioǿerঢ়s ǟailure to ǉoǾply Λith Seǉtioǿ ࢲࢳࢴA deserΚes
to be affirmed, the computation of the penalty requires modification. In
our considered view, the penalty ought to be computed from the expiry
of the period granted under the communication dated 22.04.2025 and
shall continue till 03.09.2025, namely, the date on which the present
Petition came to be instituted before this Court by the Petitioner.
19.
For all the aforesaid reasons, the challenge to the action initiated
under Section 123A, therefore, fails. The impugned order dated

13
12

::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2026 21:09:38 :::

17- WP -2347-2025( F )

ࢲࢸ.ࢱࢷ.ࢳࢱࢳࢶ is upheld iǿsoǟar as it reǉords the Petitioǿerঢ়s ǟailure to
comply with the mandatory statutory obligations of handing over charge
and records to the newly elected Managing Committee. Insofar as it
imposes a penalty upon the Petitioner, the order dated 17.06.2025, is
modified to the limited extent that the penalty shall be calculated beyond
the expiry of the period granted in the communication dated 22.04.2025
till 03.09.2025. The Petitioner is directed to pay the penalty amount
within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which the Authorities
can recover the same in accordance with law from the Petitioner.

20. The Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed in the aforesaid
terms. The Rule is made partly absolute. There shall be no order as to
costs. The Registry is directed to waive office objections and number the
Petition.

HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

13
13

::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2026 21:09:38 :::