A Registrar becomes functus officio after rejecting a bifurcation proposal and cannot reopen proceedings.

Petitioner No. 1, Shiv Shopping Centre Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., is a registered co-operative housing society comprising 91 members, including residential and commercial premises owners.

Respondent Nos. 3–19, who occupied commercial premises in the building, submitted a proposal under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (“MCS Act”) seeking bifurcation of the Society and formation of a separate society for shop owners.

The Society opposed the proposal, and a majority of its members voted against bifurcation at a Special General Body Meeting.

After conducting hearings, the Deputy Registrar issued a detailed 16-page document dated 21 April 2026 recording that bifurcation was not appropriate, but simultaneously sought the opinion of the Housing Federation.

Following the transfer of the officer, his successor issued a communication dated 1 June 2026 treating the proceedings as pending and proposing a fresh hearing.

The Petitioners challenged the Federation consultation and the reopening of the proceedings.

Whether the document dated 21 April 2026 constituted an order rejecting the proposal for bifurcation under Section 18 of the MCS Act, or merely an opinion/remark in pending proceedings?

Whether the Deputy Registrar was required to consult the notified Federal Society before rejecting the bifurcation proposal, particularly when no draft scheme had been prepared?

Whether the successor Deputy Registrar could reopen and rehear the bifurcation proceedings after the proposal had been rejected by the predecessor officer?

The Court applied Sections 17 and 18 of the MCS Act and Rule 17 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961.

Section 17 confers a right upon a society to amalgamate, divide, transfer its assets and liabilities, or convert itself upon adoption of the requisite two-thirds resolution and obtaining the Registrar’s approval.

Section 18 confers power upon the Registrar to direct amalgamation, division, or reorganisation where necessary in the public interest, in the interest of members, for the co-operative movement, or for proper management, after consultation with the notified Federal Society.

Rule 17 prescribes the sequence: the Registrar must first prepare a draft scheme, consult the Federal Society, consider its suggestions, prepare and serve a draft order on the concerned society, consider objections and suggestions, and thereafter issue a final order.

Relying on Unnat Nagar Division-3 Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, W.P. No. 17319 of 2024, decided on 7 January 2025, the Court held that consultation with the Federal Society is required after preparation of the draft scheme but before preparation and service of the draft order.

The Court also applied the principle that, upon passing a final order, the authority becomes functus officio and cannot review or reopen the matter without statutory authority.

An appeal lies against an order or decision under Section 18 under Section 152 of the MCS Act.

The Court held that the substance and effect of the 21 April 2026 document, rather than its form or accompanying communication, determined its legal character.

The Deputy Registrar had conducted hearings, applied his mind to the bifurcation proposal, and expressly concluded that bifurcation was not appropriate.

Since he had not prepared a draft scheme, the procedural stage requiring consultation with the Federal Society under Rule 17 had not arisen.

The Court therefore treated the document as an order rejecting the proposal at the threshold, notwithstanding the erroneous request for Federation remarks.

The successor officer’s own affidavit admitted that the predecessor had rejected the proposal, and the subsequent notice for fresh hearing consequently amounted to an impermissible review and re-adjudication for which the Deputy Registrar had no statutory power.

The Court further found the justification that the fresh hearing followed receipt of the Federation’s opinion to be factually incorrect, since the Federation had not communicated any opinion before 1 June 2026.

Respondent Nos. 3–19’s appeal against the 21 April 2026 order also supported its character as an appealable order under Section 152.

The simultaneous request for the Housing Federation’s opinion was erroneous and unnecessary because no draft scheme had been prepared and the proposal had already been rejected.

The successor Deputy Registrar’s communication dated 1 June 2026 reopening the proceedings and scheduling a fresh hearing was set aside as being without jurisdiction.

Respondent Nos. 3–19 were permitted to prosecute their appeal against the order dated 21 April 2026 in accordance with law, while all parties’ contentions on the merits of that order were expressly kept open.

The Writ Petition was allowed, Rule was made absolute, and there was no order as to costs.