Bombay High Court

Ajay Bhambri vs The Honble Minister Co-Operation ... on 12 November, 2025

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

2025:BHC-AS:48292

Gokhale 1 of 8 2&67-wp-13526-25+

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13526 OF 2025

Ajay Bhambri & Ors. ..Petitioners
Versus
The Hon'ble Minister, Co-operation, Cotton ..Respondents
and Textile & Ors.

WITH
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15136 OF 2025

Rajkiran Co Operative Housing Society Ltd. & ..Petitioners
Ors.
Versus
The Hon'ble Divisional Joint Registrar & Ors. ..Respondents

__________
Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, i/b. Usha Tiwari and Vandana Tiwari
for Petitioners in WP/13526/2025 and for Respondent Nos.3 to 6
in WP/15136/2025.
Mr. Akash Warang for Respondent No.4.
Mr. Kedar B. Dighe, Addl.G.P. a/w. Smt. V.S.Nimbalkar, AGP for
State/ Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in WP/13526/25.
Mr. A. C. Bhadang, AGP for State/Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in
WP/15136/25.
__________

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATE : 12 NOVEMBER 2025
PC :

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with consent of
the parties.

2. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

Digitally
signed by
VINOD
VINOD BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
2025.11.12
18:14:12
+0530

::: Uploaded on - 12/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2025 20:57:11 :::
2 of 8 2&67-wp-13526-25+

of India, the petitioners, who are members of the housing society,
challenge the order passed by the Revisional Authority. By the
impugned order, the Revisional Authority set aside the judgment
and orders of the Appellate Authority. Those appeals had arisen
out of an inquiry under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act. After the report under Section 83, an order
under Section 88 was passed appointing an Authorized Officer to
conduct further inquiry under Section 88.

3. The facts necessary to decide the present dispute are
stated below.

4. Respondent No.2 is a co-operative housing society. The
petitioners are members of Respondent No.4 housing society.

5. One member filed a complaint. The managing
committee, consisting of six members out of the total 54 members
of the society, passed a resolution supporting that complaint. Based
on that complaint and resolution, proceedings under Section 83 of
the Act were initiated. The Inquiry Officer appointed under Section
83 conducted inquiry and submitted his report. Based on that
report, the authorities appointed an Authorized Officer to conduct
further proceedings under Section 88.

6. The petitioners felt aggrieved by the findings against
them in the inquiry report under Section 83. They also felt
aggrieved by the appointment of the Authorized Officer under
Section 88. They therefore filed an appeal under Section 152 of

::: Uploaded on - 12/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2025 20:57:11 :::
3 of 8 2&67-wp-13526-25+

the Act and also filed a revision against the order appointing the
Authorized Officer. The Appellate Authority recorded a clear
finding that the inquiry under Section 83 was initiated at the
instance of less than one-fifth of the total members of the society.
Hence, the initiation of the inquiry itself was void in law. The
Appellate Authority therefore set aside the inquiry report under
Section 83 and also set aside the order appointing the Authorized
Officer under Section 88.

7. The society carried the matter in revision under Section
154 of the Act. The Revisional Authority held that the complaint
under Section 83 was based on a General Body Resolution and
allowed the revision. The members of the then managing
committee have filed this writ petition challenging that order.

8. For deciding this petition, the only question that arises is
whether an inquiry under Section 88 can be initiated at the
instance of a single person, supported only by a resolution of the
managing committee consisting of six members out of the total 54
members of the society. To answer this issue, it becomes necessary
to refer to Section 83 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies
Act, which reads as follows.

"Section 83 - Inquiry by Registrar

(1) The Registrar may suo motu, or, on the application of
the one-fifth members of the society or on the basis of
Special Report under the third proviso to sub-section (5B)
of section 81, himself or by a person duly authorised by

::: Uploaded on - 12/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2025 20:57:11 :::
4 of 8 2&67-wp-13526-25+

him in writing, in this behalf, shall hold an inquiry into the
constitution, working and financial conditions of the
society.]

(2) Before holding any such inquiry on an application, the
registrar may 2[having regard to the nature of allegations
and the inquiry involved, require the applicant to deposit
with him such sum of money as he may determine,]
towards the cost of the inquiry. If the allegations made in
the application are substantially proved at the inquiry, the
deposit shall be refunded to the applicant, and the
Registrar may under section 85, after following, the
procedure laid down in that section, direct from whom
and to what extent the cost of the enquiry should be
recovered. If it is proved that the allegations were false,
vexatious or malicious, the Registrar may likewise direct
that such cost shall be recovered from the applicant.
Where the result of the inquiry shows that the allegations
were not false, vexatious or malicious, but could not be
proved, such cost may be borne by the State Government.]

(3) (a) All officers, members and past members of the
society in respect of which an inquiry is held, and any
other person who, in the opinion of the officer holding the
enquiry is in possession of information, books and papers
relating to the society, shall furnish such information as in
their possession, and produce all books and papers
relating to the society which are in their custody or power,
and otherwise give to the officer holding an inquiry all
assistance in connection with the inquiry which they can
reasonably give.

(b) If any such person refuses to produce to the
Registrar or any person authorised by him under sub-
section (1), any book or papers which it is his duty under
clause (a) to produce or to answer any question which put
to him by the Registrar or the person authorised by the
Registrar in pursuance of sub-clause (a) the Registrar or
the person authorised by the Registrar may certify the
refusal and the Registrar after hearing any statement
which may be offered in defence punish the defaulter with
a penalty not exceeding 4[five thousand rupees]. Any sum

::: Uploaded on - 12/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2025 20:57:11 :::
5 of 8 2&67-wp-13526-25+

imposed as penalty under this section shall on the
application by the Registrar or the person authorised by
him to a Magistrate having jurisdiction be recoverable by
the Magistrate as if it were a fine imposed by himself.

(c) The Registrar or the officer authorised by him
shall complete the inquiry and submit his report as far as
possible within a period of six months and in any case not
later than nine months.]

(4) The result of any inquiry under this section shall be
communicated to the society whose affairs have been
investigated.

(5) It shall be competent for the Registrar to withdraw any
inquiry from the officer to whom it is entrusted and to
hold the inquiry himself or entrust it to any other person
as he deems fit."

9. I have examined sub section (1) of Section 83 of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The scheme of this
provision is clear. The Registrar may direct an inquiry under
Section 83 only in three situations. First, when the Registrar acts
on his own. Second, when not less than one-fifth of the total
members of the society make an application. Third, when there is a
special report as contemplated under the third proviso to sub
section (5B) of Section 81. The power to inquire under Section 83
is not unregulated. The legislature has prescribed the conditions
that must exist before such inquiry can begin. These conditions
safeguard the autonomy of co-operative societies and prevent
misuse of statutory inquiry for private or collateral purposes.

10. In the present case, there is no dispute on the
foundational facts. The inquiry was not commenced by the

::: Uploaded on - 12/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2025 20:57:11 :::
6 of 8 2&67-wp-13526-25+

Registrar on his own. It was also not based on any special report
under Section 81. The record of the Section 83 inquiry itself shows
that the proceedings began on the complaint of a single member,
accompanied by a resolution of the managing committee signed by
six members. Even if for argument one assumes that these six
members are to be treated as applicants under Section 83, the
statutory requirement still remains unfulfilled. The society consists
of fifty four members. One-fifth of fifty four would require at least
eleven members. Six members fall short of the required number.
The requirement of one-fifth is not a matter of form. It is a matter
of legislative mandate. When an inquiry affects the financial and
administrative functioning of a society and may result in further
proceedings under Section 88, law expects that not a small
minority but a sufficient number of members must support such
action. The Appellate Authority correctly held that initiation of the
inquiry at the instance of a single member supported by five others
was not in accordance with law. Once the very initiation is
contrary to the statute, the inquiry and the report cannot survive.

11. The Revisional Authority proceeded on an incorrect
premise that the initiation of the inquiry was based on a decision
of the general body. I have carefully examined the general body
resolution dated 15 June 2022 that has been relied upon. It
contains no decision authorizing commencement of inquiry under
Section 83. It only refers to routine administrative matters. There
is no material to show that the general body resolved to move the

::: Uploaded on - 12/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/11/2025 20:57:11 :::
7 of 8 2&67-wp-13526-25+

Registrar under Section 83. Thus, the Revisional Authority acted
on a factually wrong basis. An order founded on an incorrect
factual assumption cannot stand. Therefore, the order passed in
Revision Application No. 224 of 2024 cannot be sustained.

12. Hence I pass the following order.

ORDER

i) The impugned judgment and order of the Revisional Authority is quashed and set aside.

ii) The order of the Appellate Authority, which set aside the report under Section 83 of the Act, is restored.

iii) Once the report under Section 83 does not survive, the consequential appointment of the Authorized Officer under Section 88 also cannot stand.

iv) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

v) In Writ Petition No. 15136 of 2025, the society approached this Court only because it apprehended that its revision may not be maintainable. Since the petition filed by the managing committee member has resulted in

8 of 8 2&67-wp-13526-25+

setting aside the Section 83 order itself, nothing further remains in the said petition. Writ Petition No. 15136 of 2025 is dismissed.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)