Mr. Mahesh Jondhalekar vs Mrs. Sharawati S. Patil And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 5860 Bom

Bombay High Court

Mr. Mahesh Jondhalekar vs Mrs. Sharawati S. Patil And Ors on 19 September, 2025

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

2025:BHC-AS:39232-DB
                                                                                           26-wp9351-2023.doc


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

                                                    WRIT PETITION NO.9351 OF 2023

                             Mahesh Jondhalekar & Anr.                      ... Petitioners
                                        V/s.
                             Sharawati S. Patil & Ors.                      ... Respondents

      ATUL
      GANESH
                             Mr. Naveen Sharma for the petitioners.
      KULKARNI
      Digitally signed by
      ATUL GANESH
      KULKARNI
      Date: 2025.09.19
                             Mr. Shankargouda Patil for respondent No.1.
      17:55:13 +0530


                             Mr J.P. Patil, AGP for the State.


                                                             CORAM    : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                             DATED    : SEPTEMBER 19, 2025
                             P.C.:

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners, who are members of the Managing Committee of a cooperative society, have challenged the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pune. The said order disqualified the petitioners under Rule 58 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961. The Assistant Registrar recorded a finding that the petitioners stood disqualified by virtue of Bye-Law No.117 of the Society.

2. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to Bye-Law No.117, which specifies various grounds of ineligibility for being elected or co-opted as a Member of the Committee. The grounds of disqualification are clearly enumerated under clauses (a) to (f), such as conviction for an offence involving

26-wp9351-2023.doc

moral turpitude, default in payment of dues, liability under Sections 79, 88, 85 or 147 of the Act, failure of an Associate Member to submit a no-objection certificate, lack of status as an active member, and subletting or transfer of premises without permission.

3. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said order of disqualification, preferred a revision before the Revisional Authority. The Revisional Authority, by the impugned order, confirmed the decision of the Assistant Registrar. The Revisional Authority observed that before passing the disqualification order, the principles of natural justice were duly followed. It further reiterated that the acts of the petitioners amounted to conflict of interest with the affairs of the Society, and hence, they stood disqualified.

4. On a careful perusal of Bye-Law No.117, it is evident that "conflict of interest" is not a ground of disqualification provided therein. Disqualification has to strictly fall within the grounds enumerated in the bye-law or in the statutory provisions of the Act and Rules. The authorities below could not have imported a ground which does not find mention either in the bye-law or in the statute. In cooperative jurisprudence, disqualification results in depriving an elected member of his statutory right to hold office. Hence, such disqualification has to be construed strictly, and no addition to the grounds can be made by way of inference.

5. Further, it is material to note that after the order of disqualification was passed, the affairs of the Society were already

26-wp9351-2023.doc

taken over by a newly elected Managing Committee. This renders the issue of disqualification of the petitioners in the previous Committee redundant. The action of the authorities, therefore, not only travels beyond the bye-laws but also operates upon a situation that has lost its relevance with the change of the Managing Committee.

6. In view of the above discussion, both the orders passed by the Assistant Registrar on 2 September 2022 and by the Revisional Authority on 3 March 2023 cannot be legally sustained. The foundation of these orders rests on a ground of disqualification not recognized either under Bye-Law No.117 or under the Cooperative Societies Act and Rules.

7. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that the point relating to "conflict of interest not being a ground under Bye-Law 117" was not specifically raised in the writ petition. He relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Bharat Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others (1988) 4 SCC 534, Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal and another (2008) 17 SCC 491, and Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao and another 2022 SCC OnLine SC 928, to argue that a party cannot be taken by surprise on grounds not pleaded.

8. In my considered view, these authorities lay down the principle that a question of fact, unless pleaded, cannot be relied upon. However, where a pure question of law arises on the admitted facts or from the face of the record, it need not be specifically pleaded in the petition. The question raised here is

26-wp9351-2023.doc

purely one of law, namely, whether "conflict of interest" finds place as a disqualification under Bye-Law No.117. The issue does not require leading of any evidence and can be determined on the admitted record. Hence, the objection raised by the respondents has no merit.

9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The orders dated 2 September 2022 and 3 March 2023 are quashed and set aside.

10. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. No costs.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)