Registrar cannot adjudicate title disputes or membership validity under supervisory powers of Section 79(2), MCS Act.

The dispute concerns Flat No. A/4 in the Respondent No. 1 Society. Originally owned by Balmukund Acharya, his brother Dattakumar was added as a joint/nominal member in 1981

Balmukund later filed an eviction suit and sought Dattakumar's removal from the share certificate, but eventually withdrew the prayer regarding membership deletion to maintain the suit's jurisdictional focus

Following the deaths of Balmukund and his son, the Petitioner (granddaughter) was granted sole membership and a duplicate share certificate in 2012

Dattakumar subsequently applied to the Deputy Registrar, who, on 16 May 2016, issued directives under Section 79(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (MCS) Act, 1960, ordering the Society to cancel the Petitioner’s membership, restore Dattakumar's water supply, and return his car parking space

1. Whether the Deputy Registrar has the jurisdiction under Section 79(2) of the MCS Act to adjudicate title disputes and direct the cancellation of a member's share certificate

2. Whether the availability of an alternate statutory remedy under Section 152 of the MCS Act bars the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 227

The court applied Section 79 of the MCS Act, 1960, which empowers the Registrar to enforce a society's obligations to file returns or comply with specific administrative orders. This power is supervisory, not adjudicatory.

The court relied on the precedent Sadashiv Nagappa Kadam v. State of Maharashtra, holding that Section 79 does not empower the Registrar to decide questions of title or substantive civil rights in immovable property.

Regarding writ maintainability, the court applied the principle from Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, which allows a writ petition despite alternate remedies if the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction.

The Court observed that Section 79(2) is limited to ensuring a society performs duties required by the Act, Rules, or Bye-laws, or complies with previous administrative orders.

The Deputy Registrar exceeded these bounds by deciding a "serious title dispute" between the Petitioner and Dattakumar.

Adjudicating membership based on a contested family arrangement constitutes an exercise of adjudicatory power reserved for the Co-operative Court, not supervisory power under Section 79.

While directives regarding water supply and parking (essential services/amenities) fell within the Registrar's supervisory scope, the order to cancel the share certificate was a "virtually exercised adjudicatory power".

The Court further held that since the order regarding membership was "wholly without jurisdiction," the Petitioner was not required to exhaust the alternate remedy of a statutory appeal.

It held that the Deputy Registrar’s directive to cancel the Petitioner’s membership and share certificate was without jurisdiction and set it aside.

However, the directives regarding the restoration of water supply and return of car parking were maintained as they fell within the Registrar's administrative purview.

The Court clarified that this judgment does not prevent the parties from seeking a declaration of title or membership cancellation through a competent civil court or the Co-operative Court.