Bombay High Court
Urvinder Singh Pal vs The Deputy Registrar Co Operative ... on 6 October, 2025
2025:BHC-OS:18100-DB
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.24992 OF 2025
1. Urvinder Singh Pal ]
Age: 70 Years, ]
An adult Indian inhabitant having his ]
address at land bearing CTS No.1053/ ]
1052/ (1-22), Jayprakash Road, ]
Versova, Andheri (West), ]
Mumbai - 400 061. ]
2. Sonali Hemani ]
Age: 45 Years, ]
An adult Indian Inhabitant having her ]
address at land bearing CTS No.1053/ ]
1052/(1-22), Jayprakash Road, ]
Versova, Andheri (West), ]
Mumbai - 400 061. ]
3. Rakesh Arora, ]
Age: 70 Years, ]
an adult Indian Inhabitant having his ]
address at land bearing CTS No.1053/ ]
1052/(1-22), Jayprakash Road, ]
Versova, Andheri (West), ]
Mumbai - 400 061. ] ... Petitioners.
V/S.
1. The Deputy Registrar Co-operative ]
Societies, K/West Ward, Mumbai ]
having office at Gruhanirman Bhavan ]
Ground floor, Room No.69-A, ]
Bandra-East, Mumbai - 400 051. ]
2. Shri. Pravin Kakad ]
Authorized officer of Ganga Bhavan ]
Co-op. Housing Society Limited ]
An adult Indian inhabitant, having ]
His address at Ganjawala Aliens ]
Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., ]
CTS 2450, Ganjawala Lane, ]
Digitally
signed by
SUMEDH
NAMDEO
SUMEDH
NAMDEO SONAWANE 1/37
SONAWANE Date:
2025.10.08
10:41:57
+0530
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 :::
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
SV Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai-92. ]
3. The Mumbai District Co-op Housing ]
Federation Ltd. a Federal Society ]
Having its registered office at ]
103, Vikas Premises, 1st Floor, 11G ]
Vaidya Marg, Fort, ]
Mumbai - 400 001. ]
4. Shehnaz Kadar ]
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
5. Rita Chadha ]
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
6. IPSL Exports Pvt. Ltd. ]
A Private Company ]
Registered under the provisions of ]
Companies Act, 1956. ]
7. Geet Chadha ]
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
8. Sanchi Naresh Chadha ]
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
9. Khusboo Ashok Lala ]
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
10. Ashok Lala ]
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
11. Reshma Ashok Lala ]
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
12. Shubhdeep Kar ]
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
13. Gaurav Chanana ]
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
14. Manju Dutt ]
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
15. Nilofer Inayat Khan ]
2/37
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 :::
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
16. Rita Merchant ]
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
17. Pradeep Kulkarni, ]
An adult Indian inhabitant ]
Respondent Nos.4 to 17 having their ]
address at Ganga Bhavan Co-operative ]
Housing Society Ltd., Jayprakash ]
Road, Versova, Andheri (West), ]
Mumbai 400 061. ]
18. Divisional Joint Registrar, ]
Co-operative Societies, Mumbai ]
Division, Mumbai ]
Having its address at Malhotra House, ]
6th Floor, Opp. G.P.O., Fort, ]
Mumbai 400 001. ] ... Respondents.
______________________________________
Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate (VC) a/w. Adv. Arun Panickar,
Adv. Nishant Chotani, Adv. Vinay Nair for the Petitioners.
Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. Jeet Gandhi, Adv.
Siddharth Joshi for Respondent Nos.4 to 17.
Mr. Manish Upadhye, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 18-State.
_____________________________________________
CORAM : KAMAL KHATA, J.
RESERVED ON : 26th September, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 6th October 2025.
Judgment :
1) By this Writ Petition, the Petitioners challenge:
(i) The Order dated 3rd June 2025 passed by the
Respondent No. 1 - Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies (DRCS)
(impugned order) - whereby the Petitioners were disqualified and
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
barred from being re-elected, re-co-opted or re-nominated as
members of any Committee until the expiry of one term; and
(ii) The Order dated 17th July 2025 passed by the
Respondent No.18 (Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies
('DJRCS') rejecting ad-interim reliefs seeking stay of implementation
of the impugned order.
The aforestated two orders are hereinafter referred to as the
impugned orders for the sake of brevity.
2) Mr. Kamat learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners
submitted that the rejection of the ad-interim relief by the DJRCS
effectively defeats the Petitioners' rights by barring their
participation in the election process of the managing committee.
Thus, reliefs are sought by filing the Writ Petition.
3) Mr. Jagtiani learned Senior Advocate for Respondent Nos.4
to 17 raises a preliminary objection. He submitted that, the
Petitioners have an efficacious alternative statutory remedy by way
of Revision Application before the State Government under Section
154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ('Societies
Act'). The Petitioners have, however, bypassed this statutory remedy
and directly approached this Court by way of the present Writ
Petition, which is impermissible. He relied upon the case of Mohit
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
Bhardwaj & Ors vs. State of Maharashtra 1, Dilip s/o. Yenorkar vs.
Divisional Joint Registrar2 and Siddheshwar CHSL vs. Sunil Apte &
Ors.3 in support of his above contention.
4) In response, Mr Kamat argues that there is a distinction
between the maintainability and the entertainability of a Petition
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. He argued
that the rule of exhausting alternate remedies is not an absolute bar
but a matter of judicial discretion, particularly when the case falls
within the recognized exceptions to the general rule. He submitted
that the orders passed by Respondent No.1 and 18 are challenged on
two such recognized exceptions:
(i) Violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
(ii) Existence of a binding judicial precedent in favor of
the Petitioners.
5) He relied upon Shireen Sami Gadiali & Anr. vs. Spenta Co-
op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & Ors.4 and Harish Arora & Ors. vs. Deputy
Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors.5 in support of his
submissions.
6) Mr. Kamath submitted that the Respondent No.1 has placed
1 2015:BHC-AS:25579.
2 2009 (5) Mh.L.J.
3 2016:BHC-AS:8809.
4 2011 (3) Mh.L.J.
5 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2833.
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
reliance on alleged WhatsApp chats while arriving at his conclusions.
He submitted that this reliance was in gross violation of the
Principles of Natural Justice, warranting interference by this Court.
Neither of the two show cause notices contained any charge, much
less a specific charge, based on these chats, even though they were
treated as one of the grounds for passing the Order under Section
78A of the Societies Act against the Petitioner.
7) Relying on Gorkha Securities Services vs. Government [NCT
of Delhi]6, he submitted that the show-cause notice must state
material grounds necessitating action, with sufficient particulars to
enable the noticee to effectively respond, since the fundamental
purpose is to make the person aware of the precise case they must
meet.
8) He further relied on Shankarlal Gunvani vs. State of
Maharashtra7 to contend that Section 78(1) mandates a clear
statement of material facts, particulars, and legal provisions
constituting specific charges against the committee or its member.
9) He added that it is not expected of a person charged under
Section 78(1) to inquire about material facts, particulars of charge
and the law applied to first understand its nature and then furnish an
explanation thereto. A failure to spell out definite charges vitiates the
6 (2014) 9 SCC 105
7 2011 [2] Mh. L. J. 673
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
findings, not only on the ground of breach of principles of natural
justice, but also on denial of effective opportunity, as contemplated by
Section 78 of the Societies Act.
10) He relied on Sadashiv vs. Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation
and Textile8 to emphasize that a show-cause notice must give the
person a fair opportunity to object or defend by informing him clearly
of the case he must meet.
11) He submitted that, pursuant to the show cause notice dated
9th April 2025, the Petitioners filed their response on 15 th May 2025,
categorically informing the authority of the resolutions passed in the
requisitioned Special General Body Meeting held on 20 th April 2025
by a majority.
12) On the same day a supplemental complaint was addressed
by the original complainants and an allegation was made that the
Secretary of the society has been privately negotiating with certain
developers based on certain WhatsApp chats. He submitted that
neither did this allegation form a part of the original show cause
notice or the subsequent show cause notice dated 9 th April 2025 and
nor has the Respondent no.1 issued a fresh show cause notice on the
basis of the supplemental complaint. He submitted that no
opportunity to deal with such a complaint was given and the matter
8 2012 [6] Mh.L.J. 213
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
was closed for orders and the matter was referred to the Respondent
No.3 for its recommendations. After receiving the recommendations
from Respondent No.3 on 27 th May 2025 the Petitioner was granted
an opportunity to respond to the same. The Petitioners filed their
written submissions and the matter was closed for orders on 2 nd June
2025. An order was passed under Section 78A of the Act by the
Respondent No.1 on 3rd June 2025.
13) He submitted that the Respondent no.18 rejected the ad -
interim reliefs on 17th July 2025 without assigning any reasons. He
further contended that the order dated 11 th September 2025 was
passed without independent application of mind and without
recording reasons.
14) He submitted that the Respondent no.1 clearly travelled
beyond the scope of the show cause notices and expanded the
proceedings in a manner impermissible in law.
15) He argued that since the foundation of a case was not laid
down in the show-cause notices, Respondent no.1 could not make out
a case not contained therein, relying on Commissioner of Central
Excise vs. Champdany Industries Ltd.9 and Rajendra S. Bajaj vs.
Union of India10.
16) Mr. Kamat submitted that the order in the first round of
9 (2009) 9 SCC 466
10 2024 SCC Online Bom 2183
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
proceedings was set aside by this Court's order dated 2 nd April 2025.
Nevertheless, the subsequent orders dated 3rd June 2025 and 11th
September 2025 were passed by the same Officer, indicating a
predetermined approach to disqualify the Petitioners, without any
lawful or reasonable basis. He further submitted that the Petitioners
had denied the veracity of these WhatsApp chats in their written
submissions, pointing out that these were third party documents that
must be proved in accordance with law.
17) He argued that under Section 78A of the Act, Respondent
No.1 must first form an opinion before issuing a show-cause notice
and can take action only upon concluding that the charges mentioned
in the notice are proved. No fresh show-cause notice was issued after
the receipt of the alleged WhatsApp chats. He contended that the only
logical inference from this omission is that Respondent no.1 did not
consider these chats as sufficient grounds to disqualify the
Petitioners under Section 78A, and therefore no notice with a specific
charge was issued as mandated.
18) He submitted that the proceedings before Respondent No.1
were not inter partes but initiated by a statutory authority upon
formation of an opinion. Therefore, merely granting the Petitioners
an opportunity to file written submissions, in respect of documents
that were not part of the specific charges in the show cause notice
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
cannot cure the gross violation of the principles of natural justice or
the breach of the mandatory requirement of affording an effective
opportunity to furnish an explanation or raise objections, as
contemplated under the Act.
19) Mr. Kamat submitted that the alleged violation of the
guidelines issued under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act 1960 are directory and not mandatory in nature, as
held by a catena of Judgments. He relied particularly on Harish
Arora & Ors. vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors.
(Supra), especially paragraphs no. 47, 49, 54-56, 90, 99 and 203. He
contended that, despite the entire legal position regarding Section
79A guidelines being placed before the Respondent No.1 and 18, they
chose to ignore the same, although they were bound by Judicial
discipline to follow the interpretation laid down by this Court. By
ignoring binding law, the orders passed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 18,
stand vitiated on the ground of legal perversity.
20) He submitted that the interpretation of Section 79A of the
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) effectively
removes the discretion of Respondent Nos. 1 and 18 to disqualify the
Managing Committee members merely on the basis of non-
compliance with such guidelines.
21) He relied upon the Special General Body Meeting held on
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
20th April 2025, which deliberated on the events that had transpired
and, through a democratic process, passed resolutions ratifying the
actions of the managing committee. He submitted that the General
Body of the Society is the Supreme decision-making Authority under
the scheme of the MCS Act.
22) He submitted that, the principle of self-governance, which
underpins the functioning of the Act, must be exercised strictly in
compliance with procedural safeguards and legal standards - which
were completely absent in the present case.
23) In view of the above, the Managing Committee cannot be
said to have acted arbitrarily or contrary to the collective will of the
Society. On this ground alone, the orders passed by the Respondent
No.1 and 18 stand vitiated and are liable to be set aside.
24) With respect to the alleged breach of the Order dated 10 th
September 2024, passed by the Hon'ble Co-operative Court in dispute
No. 224 of 2024, Mr. Kamat submitted that the said Court has
exclusive jurisdiction under Section 148A of the MCS Act 1960, to
take cognizance of any such breach or contempt. Therefore, it was
impermissible for Respondent Nos. 1 and 18 to base their orders on
the alleged breach of the Co-operative Court's Order.
25) Even otherwise, the alleged breach had been purged by the
resolution passed at the Special General Body meeting held on 20 th
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
April 2025. Therefore, it was not open for the Deputy Registrar to
take cognizance of any such alleged breach of the Co-operative
Court's order.
26) Regarding the allegation of incurring expenditure beyond
what was permitted under the by-laws towards payment of fees to the
Society's lawyers and consultants, he submitted that in the Special
General Body meeting held on 20th April 2025, the majority of
members passed resolutions:
1. Endorsing all steps taken by the managing
committee in redevelopment process;
2. Scraping the entire redevelopment process, revoking
PMC appointment, and returning the earnest money
deposits of all bidders; and
3. Ratifying the payments to the lawyers and other
consultants of the Society in the course of the
redevelopment.
27) He pointed out that the requisitions were approved by 30 out
of 50 members of the Society. He further submitted that action based
on the objections of a minority of 14 members could not be
countenanced.
28) He submitted that the passing of such resolution was duly
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
communicated to the Deputy Registrar by the Petitioner's letter
dated 15th May 2025. He emphasized that the General Body of the
Society is the supreme authority under Section 72 of the MCS Act
and is the final authority on all matters unless restricted by general
law or the bye-laws. What is not expressly prohibited is deemed
permissible, and the General Body is free to act within that ambit.
29) He relied upon Kumari Jethi T. Sipahimalani vs.
Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal 11 particularly paragraphs
19, 20 and 27 in support of his submissions.
30) According to him, since all the actions of the managing
committee were ratified by the General Body meeting held on 20 th
April 2025, the original complaints stood rendered infructuous and
negated. By overlooking these events, Respondent Nos. 1 and 18
failed to consider relevant material.
31) He submitted that Respondent Nos. 1 and 18 ignored
relevant material on record, thereby rendering the impugned orders
perverse. He relied upon Chandrakant vs. Divisional Controller12
particularly paragraph 17, in support of this contention.
32) He further submitted that members of a Co-operative society
cannot assert rights contrary to the collective will of the majority. It
is undisputed that the General Body took a conscious decision on
11 1973 SCC OnLine Bom 76.
12 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 6697.
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
20th April 2025 by an overwhelming majority. Therefore, the
objections of a few minority complainants cannot form the basis for
passing an order under Section 78A of the Act.
33) He submitted that it is a well settled in law that once a
person becomes a member of the Co-operative Society, they lose their
individual identity and rights, which merge with those of the
collective body.
34) He submitted that a member has no independent right vis-à-
vis the Society; only the Society can represent itself as a corporate
aggregate under its seal. As long as the resolutions passed by the
General Body are valid and not set aside by a Court of competent
jurisdiction, they bind not only dissenting members but also the
concerned authorities.
35) He submitted that there is no provision in the Act, Rules, or
any other Law allows minority complaints to curtail the rights or
override the decisions of the Society.
36) He therefore submitted that it was not open to Respondent
Nos. 1 and 18 to sit in appeal over the decisions of the General Body.
He emphasized that the internal democracy of a Society cannot be
thwarted by such impugned orders. He relied upon Bengal
Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
Ltd. vs. Sri. Aloke Kumar13, particularly paragraphs 56 to 60, in
support of his submission.
37) The next contention concerned the finalization of the
minutes of the Special General Body Meeting dated 17 th February
2024 without considering the member's comments. He submitted
that this issue is sub-judice before the Co-operative Court in the
Dispute No. 224 of 2024, and therefore the Respondent No.1 and 18
lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate it.
38) He further submitted that even otherwise, the resolutions
passed in the meeting held on 17th February 2024 were ratified at the
Special General Body Meeting held on 20 th April 2025, and this was
duly communicated to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 18. He also
contended that the Federal Society (Respondent No.3) issued its
opinion dated 29th May 2025 merely reiterating its earlier opinion,
which was already the subject matter of proceedings before this
Court by Order dated 2nd April 2025.
39) He submitted that even after this Court's Order dated 2nd
April 2025, Respondent No.1 and the Federal Society proceeded in
the same manner as before, in disregard of the Court's directions.
40) According to him, the Federal Society too acted with undue
haste, ex-facie indicating malafides and an attempt to facilitate the
13 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1404
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
passing of adverse orders against the Petitioners under Section 78 A
of the Act.
41) He therefore submitted that, for the reasons stated above,
the impugned Orders dated 3rd June 2025 and 11th September 2025
passed by Respondent No.1 and 18 respectively, are perverse and in
breach of the principles of natural justice.
42) He accordingly submitted that the impugned Orders have
become infructuous and factually unsustainable and prayed that the
Petition be allowed.
43) Per Contra Senior Counsel Mr. Jagtiani submitted that, in
addition to the aforesaid ground that the Petitioners have by-passed
the alternative statutory remedy available under the MCS, the
impugned acts of the Petitioners themselves have led to their
disqualification from the Managing Committee. The said
disqualification arises from their conduct and decisions taken in
various Special General Body Meetings (SGBM), which were found to
be prejudicial to the interests of the society. He submitted that the
scope of section 78A of the MCS Act is not restricted merely to acts
connected with redevelopment process, but extends to any act of
commission or omission by a member/s of a managing committee,
that is even remotely prejudicial towards the interest of a member or
the society or where any element of fraud is disclosed.
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
44) Mr Jagtiani submitted that the scrapping of the
redevelopment process pursuant to third SGBM dated 20 th April
2025 does not in any manner alter the position or deter the initiation
of an inquiry under Section 78A of the MCS Act. The findings
recorded against the Petitioners in the impugned order are severe,
and the acts attributed to them are ex-facie against the interest of the
society. He pointed out that the Stay Application filed in the statutory
Appeal, the Petitioners themselves have admitted that the society is
in urgent need of redevelopment; yet paradoxically, they have chosen
to scrap the redevelopment project. This conduct according to him,
amounts to approbating and reprobating at their convenience, while
disregarding the welfare of the society and its members.
45) He further submitted that the charges contained in the
show-cause notices were clearly known to the Petitioners, and they
were granted ample opportunity to respond to the case made out
against them. The show cause notice was originally served on
Petitioners on 25th June 2024 and following the remand by this Court
on 9th April 2025. Not only did they file a detailed reply to the show-
cause notice, but they were afforded several oral hearings, including
further hearings after the production of the WhatsApp chats. The
Petitioners did not contend that the WhatsApp chats were beyond the
show cause notice either orally or in their written submissions filed
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
on 29th May 2025. The only contention raised therein was it must be
proved as per section 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023
which deal with admissibility to electronic records. Hence, the
contention that the principles of natural justice were violated,
according to him is wholly untenable.
46) Mr. Jagtiani contended that the impugned order is well-
reasoned one in as much as it records the submissions of the parties,
considers the material tendered and adequately sets out its findings
and with cogent reasons. The relevant extracts are as under:
Finding 1: The MC members are responsible for the
corrupt practices and mismanagement in this matter
and the same is evident from the WhatsApp chats
between the Petitioners No. 2 i.e., Sonali Hemani
(Secretary) and the PMC.
Finding 2: There is no transparency in the tender
process of the redevelopment of the Society and despite
the Dispute Order, which restrained the Petitioners from
proceeding with 'agendas related to redevelopment or
any other matter in relation thereto', the MC went ahead
and accepted Earnest Money Deposits from the
prospective developers.
Finding 3: The MC has paid an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
to Mr. Abhishek Singh HUF without permission from any
annual/special general meeting which amounts to
financial irregularity.
Finding 4: The MC has violated Bye-law No. 108 of the
Society as they circulated the minutes of the First SGBM
without first circulating the drafts minutes of the same.
Finding 5: The MC is doing redevelopment in violation of
the Government Directive dated 4th July, 2019 under
Section 79A of the Act and the Dispute Order.
47) He further submits that the WhatsApp Chats clearly
demonstrate that the appointment of the developer was pre-
determined and attempts were made to bribe officials. The sequence
of conversations demonstrates that cheques were prepared even
prior to the receipt of quotations, thereby establishing that the
financial consideration had been concluded in advance and that the
call for quotations was merely a procedural formality. Such conduct,
he argued, clearly amounts to an attempt to influence the outcome of
the redevelopment process, and reflects a complete lack of
transparency.
48) Additionally, it was submitted that the Petitioners violated
the Dispute order dated 10th September 2024, by which the members
of managing committee were specifically restrained from taking any
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
steps towards redevelopment in furtherance of minutes dated 27 th
February 2024 of first SGBM and the notice and agenda dated 11 th
July 2024 for the second SGBM. Despite such restraint, the
managing committee acted in breach of the said order by
undertaking the following actions:
i. Accepting bids from prospective developers and also
accepting the Earnest Money Deposits submitted by
the bidders.
ii. Circulating on 15th November, 2024 the final
minutes of the Second SGBM.
iii. Calling for the third, in respect of redevelopment.
Taking the decision to scrap redevelopment. The
decision to scrap redevelopment is itself a decision
in respect of redevelopment. It could not have been
taken.
iv. The MC disclosed appointment of developer on the
notice board of the Society on 26th October 2024.
v. The MC of the society organized a pre-bid meeting
secretly with the proposed bidders/developers,
without knowledge of the members of the Society.
49) He submitted that the provisions of Bhartiya Sakhshya
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
Adhiniyam, 2023 are inapplicable to proceedings before the
Respondent No. 1 and 18, being quasi-judicial authorities, and apply
only to Courts of law. Reliance was placed on Section 1 and 3 of the
Evidence Act, 1872 and the decisions in Deputy Registrar v R.
Balaiyan14, Tata Consultancy Services Limited v Cyrus Investments
Private Limited and Ors.15 and Union of India v T. R. Varma.16. He also
relied on a decision of the Delhi High Court to contend that the
requirement of a certificate under Section 65B is not mandatory even
in arbitration proceedings.
50) He further submitted that the Petitioners have attempted to
create a false narrative of violation of natural justice by alleging that
the charges were vague and not adequately described and that
adequate opportunity of hearing was not afforded. He argued that the
show-cause notice was broad and detailed. Once a notice adequately
specifies charges, it is not necessary to list every piece of evidence
that may be relied upon to substantiate the charge.
51) Relying on Ashok Kumar Sonkar v UOI17 and Board of
Directors v K. C. Rahi 18, he contended that a plea of violation of
natural justice must necessarily be accompanied by a demonstration
of prejudice suffered due to the alleged deficiency in hearing or
14 Order dated 27th March, 2025 in CRP (PD) (MD) No. 996 of 2021 passed by the
Hon'ble Madras High Court at paragraph no. 2
15 2021 (9) SCC 449 at paragraph no. 173
16 AIR 1957 SC 882 at paragraph no. 10
17 (2007) 4 SCC 54 at paragraph no. 26 to 28
18 (2008) 11 SCC 502 at paragraph no. 7 & 8
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
disclosure of information. In the absence of such prejudice, the plea
cannot be sustained.
52) He also submitted that the Government Resolution dated 4 th
July 2019 issued under section 79A of the MCS Act - though
directory - requires substantial compliance and insists upon
transparency in the development process. The findings in the
impugned order reveal that the Petitioners were predisposed towards
certain legal consultants and Project Management Consultants
(PMCs) thereby compromising fairness and neutrality. The
conclusion in the impugned order, he submitted, were based on the
cumulative effect of these actions by the managing committee.
53) Placing reliance on Dattatray Genaba Lole & Ors vs.
Divisional Joint Registrar19 he argued that the Courts should
exercise restraint in interfering with the election process at an
intermediate stage. The said decision held that not every allegation of
illegality or irregularity or every claim relating to exclusion from the
voters' list warrants interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Frequent interference at such stage would
disrupt the election process and undermine its sanctity and
democratic process.
54) He therefore submitted that the present case does not
19 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 4579
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
disclose any act of patent illegality or arbitrariness warranting
interference by this Court. For all the above reasons, he urged that
the Petition be dismissed.
Reasons and Conclusions:
55) Having heard the rival contentions, I draw the following
conclusions:
56) I agree with Mr Kamat's contention that the rule of
exhausting alternate remedies is not an absolute bar but a matter of
judicial discretion, particularly when the case falls within the
recognized exceptions to the general rule.
57) Having prima facie found merit with Mr. Kamat's arguments
the Petition was heard. Notably, the challenge to the Impugned
Orders are on the following grounds: -
1. Following the events and the purported resolution
passed at the third special General Body meeting dated
20th April 2024, the substratum of the dispute between
the parties stood resolved and no issues remained to be
adjudicated.
2. The impugned order was passed arbitrarily and with
preconceived mind, without considering the documents
produced by the Petitioners pursuant to this Court's
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
Order dated 2nd April 2025.
3. The impugned Order was passed in breach of the
principles of natural justice, as it went beyond the scope
of the show cause notice dated 9th April 2025.
4. The Respondent No.1 relied upon the WhatsApp
messages without complying with the provisions of
Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023;
and
5. The Respondent No.1 failed to consider three vital
aspects:
i) that the Petitioners acted with the support
of the majority of members of the Society and that the
minority members are bound by the decisions taken by
the majority in the special General Body meeting;
ii) the Respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction
to make any observations regarding the resolutions as
that jurisdiction vests in the Co-operative Court under
Section 91 of the Act; and
iii) any alleged violation of the dispute order
could only be adjudicated by the Co-operative Court.
58) Although several contentions have been advanced by the
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
learned Senior counsel for both sides, since the present Petition
arises from an ad-interim order passed by the Appellate Authority,
this Judgment is confined to examining the rival submissions on
three limited aspects namely, (i) maintainability of the Petition,
(ii) the adequacy of the show-cause notice, and (iii). the alleged
violation of principles of natural justice arising from the
consideration of WhatsApp messages produced during the hearing.
59) The issue pertains to Section 78A of the MCS Act the same is
reproduced herein for ready reference:
"78A. Power of supersession of committee or removal of
member thereof.
(1) If in the opinion of the Registrar, the committee or any
member of such committee has committed any act, which is
prejudicial to the interest of the society or its members or if
the State Co-operative Election Authority has failed to conduct
the elections in accordance with the provisions of this Act or
where situation has arisen in which the committee or any
member of such committee refuses or has ceased to discharge
it's or his functions and the business of the society has, or is
likely to ; come to a stand-still, or if serious financial
irregularities or frauds have been identified or if there are
judicial directives to this effect or, if there is a perpetual lack
of quorum or, where in the opinion of the Registrar the
grounds mentioned in Section 78 (1) are not remedied or not
complied with, or where any member of such committee
stands disqualified by or under this Act for being a member of
the committee, the Registrar may, after giving the committee
or the member, as the case may be, an opportunity of stating
it's or his objections in writing as provided under Section
78(1) and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being
heard, and after consultation with the federal society to which
the society is affiliated comes to a conclusion that the charges
mentioned in the notice are proved, and the administration of
the society cannot be carried out in accordance with the
provisions of this Act, rules and by-laws, he may by order
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
stating reasons therefor,--
(a) (i) supersede the committee ; and
(ii) appoint a committee consisting of three or more
members of the society otherwise than the members of the
committee so superseded, in its place, or appoint an
administrator or committee of administrators who need not
be the members of the society, to manage the affairs of society
for a period not exceeding 2[twelve months] :
Provided that, the Registrar shall have the power to
change the committee or any member thereof or
administrator or administrators appointed at his discretion
even before the expiry of the period specified in the order
made under this sub-section:
Provided further that, such federal society shall
communicate its opinion to the Registrar within forty-five
days, from the date of receipt of communication, failing which
it shall be presumed that such federal society has no objection
to the order of supersession or removed of a member and the
Registrar shall be at liberty to proceed further to take action
accordingly:
Provided also that, in case of a society carrying on the
business of banking, the provisions of the Banking Regulation
Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), shall also apply and the committee
shall not be superseded for a period exceeding one year:
(b) remove the member:
Provided that, the member who has been so removed
shall not be eligible to be re-elected, re-co- opted or re-
nominated as a member of any committee of any society till
the expiry of period of next one term of the committee from
the date on which he has been so removed:
Provided further that, in case of a society carrying on
the business of banking, the provisions of the Banking
Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), shall also apply.
(2) The provisions of sub-sections (3), (4), (5) and (6) of
section 78 shall apply mutatis mutandis, in relation to
supersession or removal under this section.]"
60) The plain reading of the above Section makes it clear that its
object is to penalize members of the managing committee who have
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
committed acts prejudicial to the interest of the Society or its
members, or where serious financial irregularities or fraud have been
identified.
61) The consequence of such findings is that the concerned
member may be removed from the managing committee, the entire
committee may be superseded, and an administrator appointed to
manage the affairs of the Society during the interim.
62) It is pertinent to note that removal from the managing
committee does not affect an individual's status as a member of the
Society. This principle is clearly set out in Parvath Setty vs. State of
Maharashtra and others20.
63) In the present case, the acts for which the Petitioners were
disqualified pertain to their actions at various Special General Body
meetings. Section 78A is not confined to redevelopment matters but
extends to any act of a managing committee member, which may
even remotely be prejudicial to the interests of the society or its
members or involve fraud or irregularity.
Show Cause Notice - knowledge and opportunity
64) As seen from the record, the Petitioners were originally
served with the Show Cause Notice on 25 th June 2025 by the
Respondent No.1, following the remand directed by this Court. The
20 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1179
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
Petitioners were thereafter served with a fresh show-cause notice
dated 9th April 2025.
65) An analysis of the show-cause notice reveals the following
charges:
i. Violating of the laws, rules, bye-laws and circulars in
relation to redevelopment;
ii. Predetermined appointment of PMC and Legal
Consultant;
iii. Decisions taken at the SGBM without quorum;
iv. Lack of transparency in redevelopment process and
allegations that the committee was misleading the
members to favour certain developers;
v. Lack of transparency in the tender process; and
vi. Arbitrary appointment of contractors.
66) Mr. Kamat's assertion that the WhatsApp chats relied upon
in the Impugned Order were beyond the scope of the show-cause
notices deserves to be rejected. The reliance placed on Gorkha
Securities Services (supra), Shankarlal Gunwani (supra) and
Sadashiv (supra) is misplaced. The Petitioners had ample
opportunity to respond to both the show-cause notices and the
WhatsApp Chats. Admittedly, written submissions were filed after
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
such chats were placed on record. No objection of the nature now
raised in the present Petition was taken at that stage, either orally or
in writing. A mere denial, without dealing with the material evidence
produced in support of the contentions is insufficient. This objection
is, therefore, clearly an afterthought.
67) In my view, the object and purpose of issue of show-cause
notice is to inform the noticee of the allegations made, so that an
effective reply or explanation may be submitted and relevant facts
within the noticee's knowledge may be brought on record. The notice
must clearly communicate the substance of the charge to enable the
recipient to meet the allegations effectively and not be prejudiced by
a manifestly vague or ambiguous notice that leaves him uncertain or
unable to respond. A show-cause notice, therefore, must not suffer
from obscurity and unintelligibility that would deprive the recipient
of a fair and adequate opportunity to defend himself. The principle of
prejudice arising from vagueness or uncertainty must, however, be
examined in pragmatic and reasonable manner. The above principles
are followed from the decision of the division bench of the Delhi High
Court in Commissioner of Service Tax v ITC Ltd.21
68) Further, the issuance of a show-cause notice does not
amount to adjudication; it is merely a preliminary step in the process
21 2014 [36] STR 481 (Del) : MANU/DE/2746/2014 : C.E.A.C 31 OF 2014 & C. M. No.
6350 of 2014.
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
leading to adjudication. The notice itself is not an order and
culminates in a decision only after the evidence and material placed
before the quasi-judicial authority or Tribunal are duly considered.
Therefore, if the Petitioners had any objection to the material
produced--such as the inclusion of the WhatsApp messages or their
alleged fabrication--it was incumbent upon them to raise such
objection at that stage. In the present case, no such objection was
taken, either contemporaneously or in writing. Consequently, the
plea of violation of the principles of natural justice is untenable.
69) The charges framed against the Petitioners were clear and
adequate, and the WhatsApp chats merely served to supplement the
existing material. It is not the Petitioners' case that the WhatsApp
chats were introduced after the conclusion of the hearing. On the
contrary, their written submissions deal with the WhatsApp chats,
thereby clearly indicating, that no such objection was raised at the
relevant stage. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot
be countenanced that reliance upon the chats was in breach of the
principles of natural justice, particularly when the Petitioners had
full opportunity to contest or contradict the same.
70) It was not as if the Petitioners were denied adequate
opportunity to address the WhatsApp messages. There is neither any
application on record nor even any assertion that the Petitioners
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
sought additional time from the Deputy Registrar to deal with the
said material by filing an additional affidavit or raising objections
with regard to its veracity or authenticity.
71) In my view, a mere objection that the WhatsApp messages
were required to be proved in accordance with Section 63 of the
Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (BSA, 2023) was insufficient.
Even assuming the provisions of the BSA, 2023 were applicable,
Section 109 thereof stipulates that the burden of proving a fact lies
upon the person having special knowledge of such fact, particularly
when the primary evidence was in the custody of the Petitioners.
Accordingly, while the legal burden to prove the assertion may not
shift, the evidentiary onus would rest upon the Petitioners to explain
or rebut the material produced. It was therefore incumbent upon the
Petitioner, at that stage, to counter the allegations either by
producing a forensic report to establish that the chat messages were
doctored or fabricated, or by seeking time to obtain such a report. At
the very least, an objection of the nature now raised in the present
Petition ought to have been taken by filing an Affidavit before the
Deputy Registrar.
72) However, I find merit in Mr. Jagtiani's submission that the
provisions of BSA, 2023 do not apply to proceedings before
Respondent No. 1 & 18, who function as quasi-judicial authorities.
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
This is evident from Section 1 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
which expressly limits its application to Courts, and from Section 3,
which defines the term "Court". This settled position is affirmed in
Deputy Register vs. R. Balaiyan (Supra), Tata Consultancy Service
Ltd. vs. Cyrus Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Ors . (Supra) and UOI vs. T. R.
Verma (Supra).
73) In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court held that a Section
65B certificate is not mandatory even in Arbitration proceedings.
Therefore, to impose such a requirement on Respondent No. 1 & 18
would be legally unfounded. Accordingly, I hold that Respondent No.
1 & 18 were perfectly entitled to rely upon the WhatsApp messages in
their impugned orders.
74) In my view, therefore, the contention that the WhatsApp
messages were required to be proved in accordance with the
provisions of BSA, 2023 and, on that basis, that the principles of
natural justice were violated, is wholly untenable and deserves to be
rejected. A roving inquiry or a full-fledged trial cannot be undertaken
where the statutory framework does not contemplate such
procedure. The Petitioners, having failed to discharge their own duty
at the appropriate stage, cannot now seek to invoke the principles of
natural justice to their advantage.
75) In my view, the contention that the WhatsApp chats fell
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
beyond the scope of the show-cause notice is merely an afterthought
and a post-facto justification advanced to assail the impugned Orders.
As will be evident hereafter, the contents of the said chats bear a
direct and material nexus with Charge No. 4 referred to hereinabove.
Analysis of the WhatsApp Chats
76) A perusal of the WhatsApp chats reveals that the
conversations between Petitioner No. 2 and the officials of the
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation clearly indicate violations of
Section 78A of the Act. The messages clearly demonstrate acts of
misconduct and fraud on the part of Petitioner No. 2.
77) The chats reveal that she privately negotiated with the
developers and sought to secure illegal monetary gains for herself
and other committee members by facilitating other eligible
developers. The chats also contain references to alleged payments
made to the Registrar for not dissolving the committee. These
conversations clearly demonstrate an attempt to influence
redevelopment process, indicating a complete lack of transparency.
These chats support the charges levied and no separate charge was
required to be levied for the same. Besides, the objection to the
production ought to have been taken at the stage of production of
those and not later.
78) In my view, such actions are clearly prejudicial and
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
detrimental to the interests of the society's members and the
society's affairs.
Natural Justice
79) The assertion that the principles of natural justice have been
violated is misplaced in the facts of this case. The Petitioners had a
clear opportunity to counter the WhatsApp messages but failed to do
so; the objection appears to be an afterthought. The show-cause
notice was broad and detailed, setting out the case the Petitioners
had to meet. A show cause notice need not enumerate every piece of
evidence. It is well settled that the principles of natural justice do not
operate in a rigid formula, and allegations of violation must be
accompanied by proof of prejudice as held in Ashok Kumar Sonkar
vs. UOI (supra) and Board of Directors vs. K. C. Rahi (Supra).
80) From the above, it is evident that the Petitioners were given
adequate opportunity to address the show-cause notice and the
WhatsApp chats. The chats were placed on record and served on the
Petitioners on 15th May 2025, and the matter was earlier heard on
22nd April, 6th May, 15th May and later on 19th May, & 2nd June 2025.
Thus, there were at least two hearing after the said WhatsApp chats
were filed, had the Petitioners raised objections at that stage, a
supplemental show-cause notice could have been issued if necessary.
Hence, the plea of violation of natural justice is unsustainable.
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
Impugned Order - Well Reasoned
81) Upon a perusal of the impugned Order of the Appellate
Authority, I find that it is well reasoned, record the submissions of
parties and the material placed on record, and set out the findings
with clarity and adequacy.
82) In the facts and circumstances of the present case - where
the challenge rests principally on the alleged non-observance of the
principles of natural justice - I find no infirmity in the approach
adopted by the quasi-judicial authorities .
83) I agree with Mr. Jagtiani's submission that the Petitioners
have an alternative efficacious remedy under section 154 of the Act.
The impugned Order of 3rd June 2025 and the Appellate Court Order
rejecting the stay dated 11th September 2025 passed by Respondent
No.18 can be challenged before the State Government under Section
154 by way of revision.
84) By not approaching the State Government, the Petitioners
have bypassed their statutorily remedy available, which is
impermissible.
85) In Mohit Bharadwaj vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), Dilip
vs. Divisional Joint Registrar (supra) and Siddheshwar CHS Ltd vs.
Mr. Sunil S. Apte (supra) the Courts have rejected writ petitions
where the remedy under section 154 has not been exhausted.
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
86) The Apex Court in Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel 22
held that the supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of
fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be
supported.
87) In my view, this Petition is directed against an interlocutory
order passed by the Appellate Authority. All the contentions of the
Petitioners can be appropriately considered in those Appellate
proceedings. The views expressed herein are prima facie and without
entering into the merits. The Appellate Authority shall decide the
Appeal on in own merits and in accordance with law, without being
influenced by any of the observations made herein. Accordingly, I find
no reason for this Court to interfere at this stage. The petition is
accordingly dismissed.
88) All parties to act on the authenticated copy of the order.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.)
Cases Referred:
1. Mohit Bhardwaj & Ors vs. State of Maharashtra 2015:BHC-
AS:25579.
2. Dilip s/o. Yenorkar vs. Divisional Joint Registrar 2009 (5)
Mh.L.J.
3. Siddheshwar CHSL vs. Sunil Apte & Ors. 2016:BHC-AS:8809
4. Shireen Sami Gadiali & Anr. vs. Spenta Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. &
22 (2022) 4 SCC 181
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
Ors. 2011 (3) Mh.L.J.
5. Harish Arora & Ors. vs. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative
Societies & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2833.
6. Gorkha Securities Services vs. Government [NCT of Delhi]
(2014) 9 SCC 105.
7. Shankarlal Gunvani vs. State of Maharashtra 2011 [2] Mh. L.J.
673.
8. Sadashiv vs. Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation and Textile 2012
[6] Mh.L.J. 213.
9. Central Excise vs. Champdany Industries Ltd. (2009) 9 SCC
466.
10. Rajendra S. Bajaj vs. Union of India 2024 SCC Online Bom 2183.
11. Kumari Jethi T. Sipahimalani vs. Maharashtra State
Cooperative Tribunal 1973 SCC OnLine Bom 76.
12. Chandrakant vs. Divisional Controller 2022 SCC OnLine Bom
6697.
13. Bengal Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and
Housing Society Ltd. vs. Sri. Aloke Kumar 2022 SCC OnLine SC
1404.
14. Parvath Setty vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2024 SCC
OnLine Bom 1179.
15. Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. UOI (2007) 4 SCC 54, paragraph no.
26 to 28.
16. Board of Directors vs. K C Rahi (2008) 11 SCC 502, paragraph
no. 7 & 8.
17. Deputy Register vs. R. Balaiyan Order dated 27.03.2025 in CRP
(PD) (MD) No. 996 of 2021 passed by Hon'ble Madras High
Court, Paragraph No. 2.
18. Tata Consultancy Service Ltd. vs. Cyrus Investment Pvt. Ltd.
and Ors. 2021 (9) SCC 449, paragraph no. 173.
19. UOI vs. T. R. Verma AIR 1957 SC 882, paragraph no. 10.
20. Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel (2022) 4 SCC 181.
21. Dattatray Genaba Lole & Ors vs. Divisional Joint Registrar
2021 SCC OnLine Bom 4579.
22. Commissioner of Service Tax v ITC Ltd. 2014 [36] STR 481
(Del) : MANU/DE/2746/2014 : C.E.A.C 31 OF 2014 & C. M. No.
6350 of 2014.
