Bombay HC Sets Aside 5-Year Ban On Housing Society Chairman Who Refused Records To A Member He Genuinely Believed Was Not One

In brief

The question

Whether disqualification under Section 154B-23 follows automatically whenever a society fails to supply documents required by Section 154B-8(2), or whether the Registrar must consider the circumstances and the committee member’s responsibility for the failure.

The court held

The Court held that disqualification was not justified on these facts because the petitioner’s refusal was based on a genuine belief about Respondent No. 3’s membership, rather than a deliberate breach of Section 154B-8(2).

It also directed

It allowed the writ petition, set aside the Deputy Registrar’s order dated 30 January 2023 and the Divisional Joint Registrar’s order dated 12 October 2023, made the Rule absolute, and disposed of the interim application; there was no order as to costs.

01Facts

The petitioner, chairman of Ishan Co-operative Housing Society, refused to provide Respondent No. 3 with requested society records, asserting that Respondent No. 3 was not a member. The petitioner and Respondent No. 3 had both previously obtained deemed membership under the same orders. However, a later auditors’ report and the membership list prepared for the society’s election excluded Respondent No. 3, and the petitioner relied on those materials in refusing the request.

¶ 31–36

The Deputy Registrar disqualified the petitioner for five years under Section 154B-23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960; the Divisional Joint Registrar upheld that decision. The petitioner challenged both orders by writ petition.

¶ 1, 7, 17

02Issues

i.Whether disqualification under Section 154B-23 follows automatically whenever a society fails to supply documents required by Section 154B-8(2), or whether the Registrar must consider the circumstances and the committee member’s responsibility for the failure.

¶ 20–24

ii.Whether the petitioner’s refusal, in light of the information available to him at the time, warranted disqualification.

¶ 31–37

03Law Applied

Sections 154B-8(1)–(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 confer on members rights to inspect specified society records and require the society to provide copies on written request and payment of the prescribed fee.

¶ 18–19

Under Section 154B-23(1)(iii), a committee member held responsible for a failure under Section 154B-8(2) incurs disqualification; subsections (2)–(3) prescribe cessation from committee membership and a five-year bar in the specified circumstances.

¶ 18–19

The Court held that the statutory consequences follow once the relevant disqualification is established, but the Registrar must first adjudicate responsibility and consider the circumstances rather than act mechanically.

¶ 21–24, 30

Relying on *Shahid Tamboli*, *Nair Pushpa Sureshkumar* and *Shashikant M. Ramane*, the Court considered whether the non-compliance was deliberate, its nature and duration, the explanation offered, and proportionality; genuine difficulty or a non-deliberate failure may be relevant, while deliberate withholding to conceal wrongdoing may warrant disqualification.

¶ 25–30

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 Section 22 Section 79 Section 85 Section 88

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s refusal to provide the records was undisputed, but the Court found that it arose from his belief—based on the auditors’ report and the election membership list, both of which excluded Respondent No. 3—that Respondent No. 3 was not a member entitled to request the documents.

¶ 33–37

Although the petitioner had previously been aware of the orders granting Respondent No. 3 deemed membership, the later events created uncertainty at the time of the request. The Court therefore found no deliberate or oblique motive to withhold records and distinguished *Shashikant M. Ramane*, where documents had been deliberately withheld.

¶ 31–38

In those circumstances, the authorities’ failure to assess the petitioner’s explanation before imposing disqualification was inconsistent with the required fact-specific adjudication.

¶ 30, 42