Bombay High Court
Dr. Chandrakant Shripati Pokharkar vs The Honourable Minister For ... on 9 October, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:43743
25-wp-9256-2022-Final.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9256 OF 2022
Digitally
signed by
Dr. Chandrakant Shripati Pokharkar ... Petitioner
SHABNOOR
SHABNOOR AYUB
AYUB
PATHAN
PATHAN
Date:
V/s.
2025.10.09
19:26:02
+0530 The Minister for Cooperation,
of the State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. N. N. Bhardashete i/b Ms. Priyanka Bhadrashete,
for the petitioner.
Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for the State - respondent Nos.
1 to 3.
Mr. Sarang S. Aradhye a/w MS. Gauri Velankar, for
respondent No.4.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : OCTOBER 9, 2025
P.C.:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. The petitioner is a member of a
cooperative society and has challenged the order passed by the
authorities under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960
(MCS Act). By the impugned order, the authorities have approved
the petitioner's expulsion from the society on the ground that the
petitioner committed acts against the interest of the society. The
petitioner contends that the procedure laid down under Rules 28
and 29 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961, was
not followed before passing the expulsion order.
25-wp-9256-2022-Final.doc
3. The petitioner's main contention is based on Section 35 of
the MCS Act, which provides that the expulsion of a member can
be approved only if not less than three-fourths of the members of
the society entitled to vote agree to such expulsion. The petitioner
submits that the society had 1,334 members as on 27 November
2018. However, only 270 members attended the general body
meeting in which the resolution for expulsion was passed.
Therefore, the requirement of approval by three-fourths of the
total members entitled to vote was not met. The petitioner relies
on the judgment in Shri Baliram Hari Patil v. The State of
Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 2658 of 1991, decided on 14
January 2010), wherein it was held that the expression "three-
fourths of the members of the society entitled to vote and present
in the meeting" must be read together, meaning that both
conditions of being "entitled to vote" and "present in the meeting"
must be satisfied.
4. The learned Advocate for the respondent-society has
opposed the petition. He submits that the plain language of
Section 35 makes it clear that the three-fourths majority is to be
computed with reference to the members who are present and
entitled to vote in the meeting. According to him, since 270
members were present and the resolution was approved by the
required three-fourths of those members, the expulsion was validly
approved in accordance with law.
5. On examining the impugned order, it is evident that all the
Authorities below have recorded a consistent finding that the total
membership of the society was 1,334 as on 27 November 2018,
25-wp-9256-2022-Final.doc
and that only 270 members were present in the General Body
Meeting where the resolution of expulsion was passed. This factual
position is not in dispute. The core issue, therefore, is whether
such a meeting, attended by only 270 members, satisfies the legal
requirement under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Cooperative
Societies Act, 1960.
6. To answer this, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in K.V. Sundaram and another v.
Raj Rajeshwari Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and others
(1980 Mh.L.J. 4). Paragraph 7 of that judgment reads as follows:
"7. This Court in K.V. Sundaram and another v. Raj
Rajeshwari Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. and others (1980
Mh.L.J. 4), held that conjoint reading of Section 35 of the
MCS Act and Rules 28 and 29 of the MCS Rules governs
expulsion of a member. Under Section 35, a Society may
expel a member for acts detrimental to its interest or proper
working, but such expulsion must be approved by a
resolution passed by a majority of not less than three-fourths
of the members entitled to vote and who are present at the
General Body Meeting held for that purpose. The Division
Bench emphasized the use of the word 'and' between
'members entitled to vote' and 'present in the meeting'. This
indicates that both conditions must co-exist. The Bench
observed that if the requirement is read as three-fourths of
those merely present, it would create an anomalous
situation. For example, if a society has 100 members, of
whom 80 are entitled to vote, and only 10 attend the
25-wp-9256-2022-Final.doc
meeting, it would be absurd to allow 7 or 8 members to pass
an expulsion resolution. Expulsion carries a stigma and has
serious civil consequences. The law, therefore, demands strict
adherence to the procedure and to both the letter and spirit
of Section 35(1) of the MCS Act."
7. The above decision makes the legal position clear. The
expression "three-fourths of the members entitled to vote and who
are present in the meeting" must be read conjunctively. The
Division Bench has consciously used the word "and" to signify that
the requirement of three-fourths majority applies to the total
members entitled to vote, not merely to those present. In other
words, the Legislature intended to ensure that expulsion of a
member should reflect the collective will of an overwhelming
majority of the society, and not of a small section of members who
happen to be present at a meeting. This interpretation safeguards
against arbitrary or vindictive action and upholds the democratic
spirit of cooperative functioning.
8. Applying this settled interpretation to the present case, the
total membership of the society was 1,334, of which only 270
members attended the meeting. Three-fourths of 1,334 would
amount to 1,000 members approximately. The attendance of 270
members falls far short of this statutory threshold. Therefore, the
resolution approving the expulsion of the petitioner cannot be said
to have been passed in accordance with Section 35 of the MCS Act.
The Authorities below failed to appreciate this statutory
requirement and mechanically approved the expulsion without
examining whether the numerical condition under Section 35 was
25-wp-9256-2022-Final.doc
satisfied. The approval thus suffers from legal infirmity and cannot
be sustained.
9. Hence, Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
10. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
