Raahul Malhari Gavhane And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 6662 Bom

Bombay High Court

Raahul Malhari Gavhane And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 9 October, 2025

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

2025:BHC-AS:43673
                                                                                   2-wp-7428-2022(1).doc


                       Shabnoor
                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                              WRIT PETITION NO.7428 OF 2022
         Digitally
         signed by
         SHABNOOR
SHABNOOR AYUB
AYUB
PATHAN
         PATHAN
         Date:
         2025.10.09
                       Raahul Malhari Gavhane & Anr.                  ... Petitioners
         17:18:47
         +0530
                                  V/s.
                       The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                ... Respondents

                       Mr. Shrivallabh Panchpor a.w Mr. Apeksha Jadhav, for
                       the petitioners.
                       Mrs. Snehal S. Jadhav, AGP, for the State - respondent
                       Nos.1 and 2.
                       Mr. Girish S. Godbole, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Shailendra
                       S. Kanetkar, for respondent No.3.



                                                       CORAM    : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                       DATED    : OCTOBER 9, 2025
                       P.C.:

                       1.      Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are members of the respondent Cooperative Bank, have challenged the order passed by the Revisional Authority under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The Revisional Authority set aside the order of the Registrar, who had earlier refused to grant approval to the expulsion of the petitioners. The Registrar had held that the material produced did not justify the proposed expulsion under Rules 28 and 29 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies

2-wp-7428-2022(1).doc

Rules, 1961.

3. On a careful reading of the Registrar's order, it appears that the Registrar did not record findings on the actual misconduct alleged against the petitioners. His decision was limited to examining whether the procedure prescribed under the Rules had been followed. The Registrar's approach was thus confined to technical compliance, without assessing whether the allegations were substantiated by evidence or whether the conduct attributed to the petitioners was such as to warrant expulsion under the law.

4. Respondent No.1, the Revisional Authority, accepted the revision filed by the society, taking the view that the petitioners' acts were against the interest of the bank. However, the Revisional Authority failed to demonstrate how that conclusion was reached. It merely stated that the acts were prejudicial to the society without analyzing the evidence on record. The order does not show application of mind to the reasons assigned by the Registrar or to the evidence placed by the petitioners in their defence.

5. Upon perusal of the Revisional Authority's order, it becomes evident that there is a lack of reasoning in support of the conclusion. A quasi-judicial authority exercising revisional powers under Section 154 is expected to examine both facts and law and must assign reasons that disclose a rational process of decision- making. The absence of such reasoning renders the order unsustainable.

6. The order merely records conclusions without explaining how the acts complained of were contrary to the interest of the

2-wp-7428-2022(1).doc

society, or how the Registrar's view suffered from legal or factual error. This omission strikes at the root of fairness in the decision- making process. The Revisional Authority could not have substituted its own conclusions in place of a reasoned finding without demonstrating consideration of the relevant evidence.

7. Therefore, the impugned orders of both the Registrar and the Revisional Authority suffer from procedural and substantive infirmities. The Registrar failed to decide the matter on merits, and the Revisional Authority failed to give reasons supported by credible evidence. Both orders cannot stand in law and are liable to be set aside.

8. The matter thus calls for remand to the competent authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to both parties and upon recording clear findings based on evidence and relevant legal provisions.

9. Hence, the following order is passed:

(i) The orders passed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are quashed and set aside.

(ii) The matter is remitted to Respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Respondent No. 2 shall decide the issue of expulsion afresh after giving both sides an opportunity to present their respective material and submissions.

(iii) While deciding the matter, Respondent No. 2 shall specifically examine whether the acts alleged against the

2-wp-7428-2022(1).doc

petitioners are established by credible evidence and whether such acts are of a nature that they can be said to be contrary to the interest of Respondent No. 3 - the society. The authority shall also ensure due compliance with the requirements under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and Rules 28 and 29 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961. The decision shall be reasoned and supported by findings drawn from the evidence on record.

10. It is clarified that by virtue of this judgment, the impugned orders having been set aside, the membership of the petitioners in the society shall stand restored. However, such restoration shall remain subject to the final outcome of the decision to be taken afresh by Respondent No. 2 in accordance with law.

11. Rule made absolute in above terms.

12. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)