Shashikant M Raman And Ors vs The Joint Registrar Co Op Soc And Ors
- Court
- Bombay High Court
Neeta Sawant WP 7757 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7757 OF 2026
Shashikant M. Ramane and Ors. ...Petitioners
V/s.
Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies,
...Respondents
SRA/MHADA and Ors.
________________
Mr. Aseem Naphade with Mr. Sanjeel Kadam, Ms. Sayalee Rajpurkar i/b
M/s. Kadam & Co. for the Petitioner .
Mr. Tejas Deshmukh with Mr. Ronak M. Utagikar and Mr. Shubham
Lolge for Respondent No.4.
Ms. S. D. Chipade, AGP for Respondent-State.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
RESERVED ON: 25 JUNE 2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 1 JULY 2026
JUDGMENT:
1) Petitioners are ex-members of co-operative housing society
and are aggrieved by their disqualification ordered by the Deputy
Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mumbai City, Eastern Suburbs,
Konkan Division, Mumbai (Deputy Registrar) on account of failure on
their part to furnish to Respondent No.4 the demanded records of the
society. Petitioners are disqualified not only as being members of the
Page No. 1 of 20
1 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 7757 of 2026
committee but are also debarred from being appointed, nominated,
elected or co-opted as the committee members for five years. Petitioners
have accordingly challenged the order dated 6 May 2025 passed by the
Deputy Registrar, who not only disqualified the Petitioners but also
appointed Administrator on the society till conduct of fresh elections. In
the Appeal, the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Slum
Rehabilitation Authority, Mumbai (Joint Registrar) has passed order
dated 24 June 2025 maintaining the disqualification of the Petitioners
but setting aside the order of appointment of the Administrator. In
Revision, the Hon’ble Minister (Co-operation) has passed order dated 21
April 2026 upholding the order of the Joint Registrar. Petitioners thus
question correctness of concurrent findings recorded by three authorities
about they incurring the disqualification.
2) Vaishali Nagar Mahalaxmi Co-operative Housing Society
Limited is a co-operative housing society registered under the provisions
of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) . The
managing committee of the society was elected for the period 2022 to
2027. Petitioners and Respondent No.4 were elected as members of the
managing committee. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 were elected as Chairman,
Secretary and Treasurer respectively of the society. In the previous
Committee for the year 2017 to 2022, Respondent No.4 held the position
as the Treasurer. He is re-elected as a member of the committee for the
second term 2022 to 2027.
3) By letter dated 5 October 2023, Respondent No.4 demanded
minutes of monthly managing committee meetings held during 1 April
Page No. 2 of 20
1 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 7757 of 2026
2022 to March 2023 complaining that he had received intimation only in
respect of three meetings of the managing committee. He appended
cheque of Rs.200/- alongwith letter dated 5 October 2023 towards
copying expenditure. By another letter dated 8 October 2023,
Respondent No.4 demanded Compact Disk (CD) containing video
recording of Annual General Meeting (AGM) held on 24 September 2023.
Here again, he appended cheque of Rs.200/- alongwith the letter dated 8
October 2023. Since demanded documents were not supplied,
Respondent No.4 made a complaint on the Government Portal on 2
November 2023. The Deputy Registrar directed the society to furnish the
demanded documents vide letter dated 20 November 2023. Another
letter dated 19 December 2023 was issued by the Deputy Registrar
directing the society to furnish the documents. It is the case of the
Petitioners that minutes of the managing committee meetings were
furnished by the society to the office of the Deputy Registrar vide letter
dated 18 January 2024. In the meantime, the Deputy Registrar issued
directions to the society under Section 154B-27(1) on 6 February 2024
directing the society to furnish the demanded documents to Respondent
No.4. By letter dated 4 March 2024, the society furnished pendrive
containing the video recording of the AGM to the office of the Deputy
Registrar with request to forward the same to Respondent No.4. The
Deputy Registrar issued show cause notice dated 15 March 2024 to the
society under Section 154B-27(2) of the MCS Act. The Deputy Registrar
thereafter proceeded to pass order dated 6 May 2025 disqualifying the
Petitioners as members of the committee and debarring them for a
period of 5 years from being appointed, nominated, elected or co-opted
as a member of the committee. The Deputy Registrar also recorded a
Page No. 3 of 20
1 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 7757 of 2026
finding that on account of disqualification, the Committee has created a
vacuum and thereby appointed an Administrator on the society.
Petitioners filed Appeal under Section 152 of the MCS Act before the
Joint Registrar, who partly allowed the Appeal to the limited extent of
appointment of the Administrator. However, the Joint Registrar
maintained disqualification of the Petitioners while setting aside the
direction for appointment of Administrator by order dated 24 June 2025.
The Revision preferred by the Petitioners before the Hon’ble Minister
(Co-operation) has been dismissed vide order dated 21 April 2026.
Petitioners have accordingly filed the present Petition. By order dated 5
May 2026, this Court has granted ad-interim relief staying the Deputy
Registrar’s disqualification order dated 6 May 2025.
4) Mr. Naphade, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners submits that the Deputy Registrar has grossly erred in taking
a very harsh action of disqualification against the Petitioners. That
Respondent No.4 is himself a member of the managing committee and is
already privy to all the records of the case. That he had deliberately
demanded the documents with an intention of somehow ensuring
disqualification of the Petitioners. That as a managing committee
member, he could always inspect the records of the society. Without
prejudice, Mr. Naphade submits that all the demanded documents were
already supplied to Respondent No.4 on 15 October 2024. Additionally,
the same were also given to the office of the Deputy Registrar on 13
March 2024. In support, he relies on society's letter dated 26 December
2023 written to the Deputy Registrar recording that the documents were
Page No. 4 of 20
1 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 7757 of 2026
attempted to be given to Respondent No.4, who refused to accept the
same.
5) Mr. Naphade further submits that the extreme action of
disqualification under the provisions of Section 154B-23(1)(iii) is not
warranted in every case where there is failure on the part of the society
to furnish the documents. That when there is substantial compliance
with the requisition, the Deputy Registrar need not exercise the power of
disqualification. He submits that the power of disqualification is
discretionary in nature and need not be exercised in every case. In
support, he relies on judgment of this Court in Kailash Maheshwari and
1
Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. He further submits that since
disqualification casts a stigma, all the conditions specified under Section
154B-8 must be scrupulously complied. That there is nothing on record
to indicate that Respondent No.4 paid the copying fees or that there was
failure to supply documents within a period of 45 days of receipt of
copying fees. The alleged cheque accompanying the letter dated 5
October 2023 was neither received by the society nor there was an
occasion to encash the same. That mere handing over of cheque is not
sufficient compliance and it must be proved that the society received the
copying fees and thereafter refused to supply the documents. In support,
he relies on judgment of this Court in Smt. Nair Pushpa Sureshkumar
2
and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. He prays for setting aside
the impugned orders.
1 2025 SCC Online Bom 3395.
2 Writ Petition No.14087 of 2023 decided on 12 December 2025.
Page No. 5 of 20
1 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 7757 of 2026
6) Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.4 opposes the Petition. He submits that the three
authorities have concurrently arrived at the conclusion. That there is
deliberate failure on the part of Petitioners to supply the demanded
documents to Respondent No.4. That the case does not involve some
delay in furnishing the documents. That the Deputy Registrar twice
directed the Petitioners to furnish the demanded documents. That
Petitioners were deliberately avoiding to furnish the documents with a
view to suppress decisions shown to have been taken in the management
committee meetings held behind the back of Respondent No.4 That mere
capacity of Respondent No.4 as management committee member does
not denude him of right as a member to demand documents. That the
objective behind the provisions of Section 154B-8 must be appreciated.
In support, he relies upon judgment of this Court in
Shahid Tamboli and
3
Ors. vs. Divisional Joint Registrar . He takes me through the contents of
Affidavit-in-Reply to demonstrate as to how the Petitioners were
deliberately attempting to avoid supplying the demanded documents. He
prays for dismissal of the petition.
7) Rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties now fall for
my consideration.
8) Petitioners are the elected members of the managing
committee of the society. By the impugned orders, they have been
disqualified by the Deputy Registrar from being members of the
committee and are also declared ineligible for being re-elected, re-co-
3 2023 SCC Online Bom 1479
Page No. 6 of 20
1 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 7757 of 2026
opted, or renominated as members for a period of five years. The
disqualification is incurred on account of alleged violation of provisions
of Section 154B-8(2) of the MCS Act. It would therefore be necessary to
first consider the provisions of Section 154B-8 dealing with the right of
the members to inspect the documents, which provides thus:
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.
9) Thus, under Section 154B-8(1), every member of the society
is entitled to inspect free of cost the documents enumerated therein.
Under sub-section (2) of Section 154B-8, a duty is caste on the society to
furnish to the member copies of documents enumerated under sub-
section (1) within 45 days of receipt of fees and upon receipt of request
in writing.
10) Section 154B-23 deals with disqualification of committee
and its members. In clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 154B-23, if a
member of the Committee is held responsible under Section 154B-(2),
Page No. 7 of 20
1 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 7757 of 2026
he incurs disqualification for being nominated, appointed, elected or co-
opted as 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
(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.
11) Upon incurring disqualification under sub-section (1) of
Section 154B-23, the member ceases to be a member of the Committee
and the seat occupied by him/her becomes vacant. Similarly, the
member incurring disqualification becomes ineligible for being re-
Page No. 8 of 20
1 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 7757 of 2026
elected, re-co-opted or renominated as a member of the Committee for a
period of five years.
12) In the present case, the Deputy Registrar has passed order
dated 6 May 2025 holding that the Petitioners have incurred
disqualification under Section 154B-23(1)(iii) of the MCS Act. As
observed above, under Section 154B-8(2), it is the duty of the society to
furnish to the member the demanded documents ( which are enumerated
in sub-section (1) ) within 45 days of date of payment of fees. There is
dispute between the parties in respect of allegation of violation of
provisions of Section 154B-8(2) by the Petitioners. I accordingly proceed
to examine the manner in which Respondent No.4 demanded the
documents and whether Petitioners complied with the requisition within
the stipulated time limit.
13) Respondent No.4 submitted letter dated 5 October 2023 to
the society complaining that while 13 monthly meetings of managing
committee were shown to have been held during 1 April 2022 to March
2023, he was given intimation in respect of only 3 meetings via
WhatsApp messages. He therefore demanded attendance and minutes of
all the 13 monthly meetings of the committee. Along with his letter,
Respondent 4 appended copy of cheque of Rs.200 dated 5 October 2023
towards fees. By another letter 8 October 2023, Respondent No.4
demanded video recording in respect of the AGM held on 24 September
2023 by way of a CD. Again, with the letter dated 8 October 2023,
Respondent No.4 appended cheque of Rs. 200/- dated 8 October 2023
towards fees. Petitioners have not enclosed the copies of letters dated 5
Page No. 9 of 20
1 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 7757 of 2026
October 2023 and 8 October 2023 alongwith the Petition. However, the
same are brought on record by Respondent No.4 along with his Affidavit-
in-Reply. Before the Deputy Registrar, Petitioners did not dispute receipt
th th
of letters dated 5 and 8 October 2023. Also not disputed is the receipt
of the two cheques. Since the fees in respect of the documents was
offered by the Respondent No. 4 along with his applications, it was for
the society to encash the cheques. It appears that the society did not
deposit the cheques and the same remained un-encashed. I am not
inclined the accept the contention of Mr. Naphade that the fees can be
considered as paid only after the moneys are actually received by the
society. the case does not involve bouncing of the cheques. If the society
chose not to deposit and encash the cheques, it cannot be contended
that the Respondent No. 4 did not pay the copying charges.
14) Thus, the 45 days period stipulated in Section 154B-8(2)
th th
commenced on 5 and 8 October 2023. However, Petitioners failed to
furnish to the Respondent No. 4 the requisitioned documents within 45
days. Respondent No.4 also did not receive any response to the requests
th th
made by him on 5 and 8 October 2023. Therefore, he made a complaint
on ‘ Sarkar Sanvad ’ portal of Government of Maharashtra. The Deputy
Registrar took cognizance of the said complaint and issued letter dated
20 November 2023 directing its Chairman/Secretary to make available to
Respondent No.4 the demanded documents after levying the requisite
fees. The society responded to the Deputy Registrar vide reply dated 26
December 2023 levelling various allegations against Respondent No. 4.
Towards the end of the said reply, the society showed willingness to
furnish copies of demanded documents to the office of Deputy Registrar
Page No. 10 of 20
1 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 7757 of 2026
in an expeditious manner and requested the Deputy Registrar to forward
the same to Respondent No. 4.
15) In the meantime, Respondent No.4 complained to the
Deputy Registrar by filing one more complaint on the portal on 14
December 2023 in addition to submitting a letter of same date to the
Deputy Registrar. The Deputy Registrar once again took cognizance of
complaint of Respondent No.4 and issued letter dated 19 December 2023
to the Chairman/Secretary directing that copies of the documents be
furnished to Respondent No.4 immediately. Thus, by the time the
society sent its response vide letter dated 26 December 2012, the Deputy
Registrar was required to send one more letter dated 19 December 2023
to the society. By both the letters dated 20 November 2023 and 19
December 2023, the Deputy Registrar specifically intimated to the
society that if documents were not supplied, appropriate action would be
initiated against the society. Petitioners have again not produced copies
of letter dated 20 November 2023 and 19 December 2023 issued by the
Deputy Registrar and its response dated 26 December 2023 alongwith the
Petition and the same have been brought on record by Respondent No.4.
16) In para-10 of the Petition, Petitioners have vaguely pleaded
as under:
10. The Petitioner submits that the Respondent No. 3, Society by taking
cognizance of the letter dated 20/11/2023 and 19/12/2023 immediately
approached to the Respondent No.4, for furnishing the required documents as
per his complaints. However, the Respondent No.4 straightaway refused to
accept the documents offered by the Respondent No.3, Society., Hence the
Respondent No.3 Society submitted all documents with the office of the
Page No. 11 of 20
1 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 7757 of 2026
Respondent No.2, Dy. Registrar and further requested to provide the same to
the Respondent No. 4, Sandesh Waigankar.
17) However, there is no documentary evidence of Petitioners
approaching Respondent No.4 for furnishing the demanded documents
or that Respondent No.4 refusing to accept the same. Instead, what is
produced alongwith the Petition is only letter dated 4 March 2024 issued
by the society to the Deputy Registrar ( bearing acknowledgement of 13
March 2024 ). Letter dated 4 March 2024 refers to the letter of the society
dated 18 January 2024 (not produced) by which copies of minutes of
monthly Management Committee meetings were apparently furnished to
the office of the Deputy Registrar. By letter dated 4 March 2023, the
society requested the Deputy Registrar to handover the same to
Respondent No.4. Also, the pendrive containing the video recording of
AGM dated 24 September 2024 was furnished to the Deputy Registrar
with request to supply the same to Respondent No.4. The letter dated 4
March 2024 reads thus:
प्रति ,
. ,
मा उपनि बंधक
,
उपनि बंधक सहकारी संस्था म्हाडा
सहकारी संस्था , मुंबई शहर , पूर्व उप गरे र्व कोंकण मंडळ कार्य क्षेत्र ,
,
कोंकण गृहनि मा ण र्व क्षेत्रनिर्वर्वकास मंडळ म्हाडा
.
मुंबई ५१
निर्वषर्यः - मासिसक सभेचे इति र्वृत्त र्व नि/ ांक २४ . ०९ . २०२३ रोजी झालेल्र्या र्वार्षिषक सर्व साधारण
सभेची CD ( पे ) सा/र करण्र्याबाब .
ड्राईव्ह
सं/भ : १ ) आपले कार्या लर्याचे जा . क्र . उपनि / सस / मुशपुऊकोम / क . १५४बी - २७ / ३६० / २०२२
. . . ( . . )
नि/ ांक ०६ ०२ २०२४ रोजी चे पत्र संस्थेस पत्र प्राप्त झाले नि/ ांक २३ ०२ २०२४ रोजी
मोह/र्य ,
Page No. 12 of 20
1 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 7757 of 2026
र्वरील सं/भDर्य पत्राचे / नि /Eशच्र्या अ ुशंगा े आपणास कळनिर्वण्र्या र्येे की उपरोक्त संस्थेचे नि/ ांक
१८ . ०१ . २०२४ रोजीचे पात्र र्वर्ये ( प्र जोडली आहे ) आपणास स/रची मासिसक सभेचे इति र्वृत्त
.
/ेण्र्या आली होी आपणास पूणश निर्व ंी करण्र्या र्येे की स/रची मासिसक सभेचे इतिर्वृत्त
आपल्र्या कार्या लर्यामार्फ श्री . सं/ेश र्वार्यंगणकर र्यां ा /ेण्र्या र्यार्वी . निह म्र निर्व ंी .
.
र्या पत्रा द्वारे उपरोक्त संस्थेची नि/ ांक २४ . ०९ २०२४ रोजी झालेल्र्या र्वार्षिषक सर्व साधारण सभेची CD
( पे - ६४ GB SanDisk ) सा/र कर आहो , आपणास निर्व ंी करण्र्या र्येले की स/रची
ड्राईव्ह
.
र्वार्षिषक सर्व साधारण सभेची पे ड्राईव्ह ६४ GB SanDisk आपल्र्या कार्या लर्यामार्फ श्री सं/ेश
र्वार्यंगणकर र्यां ा /ेण्र्या र्यार्वी .
आपले स् ेहांनिक ,
र्वैशाली गर महालक्षमी सहकारी गृहनि मा ण संस्था मर्या नि/
18) Thus, as per the case of the Petitioners themselves, the
minutes of the monthly management committee meetings were
furnished to the office of the Deputy Registrar on 18 January 2024 and
video recording of the AGM was furnished to the office of the Deputy
Registrar on 13 March 2024. Both the sets of documents were not
furnished to Respondent No.4 and the Deputy Registrar was requested to
supply the same to Respondent No.4. by letter dated 4 March 2024.
19) Mr. Naphade has strenuously contended that Petitioners had
attempted to supply the demanded documents to Respondent No.4 who
had refused to acknowledge the same. He has placed reliance on
society’s letter dated 26 December 2023, which was sent by the society in
response to letter dated 20 November 2023. Para-5 of the letter reads
thus:
. .
५ श्री सं/ेश /त्तात्रर्य र्वार्यंगणकर र्वनि र्युक्त सनिमी स/स्र्य असू सुध्/ा र्वनि र्युक्त सनिमीला निर्वनिर्वध
.
पत्र नि/लेले होे त्र्या पत्रांचे उत्तर संस्थेच्र्या सनिम ी े आर्वश्र्यक त्र्या काग/पात्रंसह त्र्यां ा /ेण्र्यासाठी
र्यार केले . श्री . सं/ेश /त्तात्रर्य र्वार्यंगणकर र्यां ा स/रचे पत्र घेण्र्यासाठी र्वेळोर्वेळी निर्व ंी केली परंु
त्र्यां ी आज़पर्यV े पत्रे घेलेले ाही .
Page No. 13 of 20
1 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 7757 of 2026
20) I am unable to read para-5 of letter dated 26 December 2023
to mean an attempt by the society to supply copies of the demanded
documents. Letter dated 26 December 2023 states that Respondent No.4
had issued various letters to the managing committee and a reply
prepared by the society alongwith necessary documents. The refusal
noted in para-5 of the letter dated 26 December 2023 is in respect of
‘ स/रचे पत्र ’ ( said letter) . Thus, the contents of para-5 are not only vague
but also do not indicate in any manner that the society attempted to
supply minutes of management committee meetings or a CD/pendrive to
Respondent No.4 in any manner. On the other hand, para-9 of the letter
dated 26 December 2023 reads thus:
.
९ आपले सं/र्भिभर्य पत्राचा आम्ही सनिम ी स/स्र्य आ/र करी असू श्री सं/ेश /त्तात्रर्य र्वार्यंगणकर
र्यां ी संस्थेच्र्या सनिमीकडे मागणी केलेल्र्या काग/ पत्रांच्र्या प्री आपल्र्या कार्या लर्याकडे
लर्वकरालर्वकार सा/र करू . आमची आपणास निर्व ंी आहे निक आपण स/रचे काग/पत्रे आपल्र्या
. ,
कार्या लर्यामार्फ श्री सं/ेश /ंत्तात्रर्य र्वार्यंगणकर र्यां ा र्योग्र्य ी समाज /ेउ /ेण्र्या र्यार्वी निह म्र
निर्व ंी .
21) Para-9 thus refers to ‘ मागणी केलेल्र्या काग/ पत्रांच्र्या प्र ी ’ (copies of
demanded documents) . The marked difference in paras-5 and 9 clearly
indicates that what was attempted to be served upon Respondent No.4
was some other response whereas willingness shown in para-9 of letter
dated 26 December 2023 was in respect of the demanded documents. The
society showed willingness to demand the documents ‘as early as
possible’, i.e., ‘ लर्वकरा लर्वकर सा/र करू’ . As observed above, the said
documents were deposited by the Petitioners in the office of Deputy
Registrar on 18 January 2024 and 13 March 2024 i.e., after substantial
delay of expressing willingness in letter dated 26 December 2023. If there
was any bonafide intention on the part of the Petitioners, they ought to
Page No. 14 of 20
1 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 7757 of 2026
have furnished the demanded documents to Respondent No. 4
immediately after receipt of Deputy Registrar’s letter dated 20 November
2023.
22) So far as Respondent No. 4 is concerned, the documents are
actually received by him after substantial delay. This is clear from
following averments in the Affdavit-in-Reply:
15. While the proceedings under section 154B-27 (2) was going on, on
21.06.2024, the Respondent No.2, has handed over to me, the CD (Pen Drive) of
the Annual General meeting of the Respondent No.3 society, held on the
24.09.2023, supplied to his office by the Respondent No. 3 society. Hereto
st
annexed and marked as EXHIBIT R-7 is the copy of the Roznama, dated the 21
June 2024 of the proceedings before the Respondent No. 2.
16. On 07.10.2024 when the matter was being heard by the Respondent No. 2,
the Respondent No. 3 Society agreed to supply me the copies of the monthly
meetings of the Management Committee of the Respondent No. 3 society, held
between 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT R-8
is the copy of the Roznama, dated the 7th October 2024 of the proceedings
before the Respondent No. 2. Accordingly, on 15.10.2024, the Chairman of the
Respondent No. 3 society supplied to me, at my residence, the minutes of the
monthly meetings of the Management Committee of the respondent No. 3
society, held between 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023. Hereto annexed and marked as
EXHIBIT R-9 is the copy of the letter of the Chairman of the Respondent No.3
society, dated the 14th October 2024, which was received by me on 15th
October 2024.
17. This shows that I have received the CD (pen Drive) of the Annual
General Meeting of the Respondent No. 3 society, held on 24/09/2023,
after 263 days and I have received the minutes of the monthly meetings
of the Respondent No. 3 society, after 377 days, from the date I have
applied for the same, which Respondent No. 3 Society was expected /
required to supply me within 45 days from the date of my application.
(emphasis added)
Page No. 15 of 20
1 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 7757 of 2026
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
th th
of 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), 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:
27. The legislative object discernible in obligating the society to furnish the
copies of the documents, as noted above, cannot be lost sight of. The
legislature has in addition to employing the word “shall” prescribed the
consequence of disqualification for non-compliance of the mandate contained
in Section 154B-8(2) of the Act. The prescription of the penalty of
disqualification to continue to be a member of the committee after a person
has been held responsible for the default and also ineligible for being elected,
co-opted or nominated as a member of the committee for five years,
underscores the anxiety of the legislature in ensuring the enforcement of the
duty cast on the society. There is nothing in the context or intention to draw
an inference contrary to the imperative nature of the prescription, especially as
regards the obligation to furnish copies of the documents.
Page No. 16 of 20
1 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 7757 of 2026
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, non-compliance
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.
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
Page No. 17 of 20
1 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 7757 of 2026
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 Societies, Mumbai
4
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
4 Writ Petition No. 16171 of 2025 decided on 25 June 2026
Page No. 18 of 20
1 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 7757 of 2026
decisions 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.
26) Reliance by Mr. Naphade on judgment of this Court in
Kailash Maheshwari (supra) appears to be misplaced. The judgment is
delivered in the context of provisions of Section 75 of the MCS Act in
which discretion is conferred on the Registrar while ordering
Page No. 19 of 20
1 JULY 2026
Neeta Sawant WP 7757 of 2026
disqualification. The judgment therefore does not have application to the
facts of the present case which involves disqualification under Section
154B-23 of the Act. However, if it is assumed that some degree of
discretion in vested in the Deputy Registrar while deciding the issue of
disqualification, such discretion could not have been exercised in favour
of the Petitioners, considering their conduct.
27) Petitioners have shown total disregard to the provisions of
MCS Act. All that they are deprived is right to be office bearer of the
society. They can enjoy all other rights qua their flats in their capacity as
members.
28) Considering the overall conspectus of the case, I do not find
any valid reason to interfere in concurrent findings recorded by three
authorities in the impugned orders. Writ Petition is devoid of merits. It
is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Digitally
signed by
NEETA
SHAILESH
SAWANT
Date:
2026.07.01
16:14:18
+0530
NEETA
SHAILESH
SAWANT
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Page No. 20 of 20
1 JULY 2026