Bombay High Court
Sarad Ashok Hagawane vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 20 September, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:39572-DB
71-wp7583-2023.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7583 OF 2025
Sandeep Madhukar Kamble & Ors. ... Petitioners
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Drupad Sopan Patil with Mr. Suyash Sule for the
ATUL petitioners.
GANESH
KULKARNI
Ms. A.A. Nadkarni, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3-
Digitally signed
by ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2025.09.20
State.
18:18:20 +0530
Mr. Sarthak S. Diwan for respondent Nos.4 to 10.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 20, 2025
P.C.:
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the Judgment
and Order dated 1 June 2023 passed by respondent No.1 in
Revision Application No.114 of 2023. By the said order, respondent
No.1 set aside the Judgment and Order dated 24 January 2023
passed by respondent No.2 dismissing the appeal filed by
respondent Nos.4 to 11. That appeal was directed against the
order passed by respondent No.3 in exercise of powers under
Section 77-A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960,
appointing an Administrator over Shriram Cooperative Housing
Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Society").
71-wp7583-2023.doc
2. The facts which have given rise to the present writ petition
are these. The petitioners are members of the Society. There was a
dispute between two groups regarding elections conducted by
them for the term 2015 to 2020. Those elections were the subject
matter of earlier litigation. It is not in dispute that the term of the
committee elected in 2015 ended in 2020. In November-December
2021, the group of petitioners and the group of respondent Nos.4
to 11 both claimed to have conducted elections of the Society. The
Election Officer appointed by the petitioners' group submitted a
report of the elections held by them on 4 January 2022 to
respondent No.3, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies.
The group of respondent Nos.4 to 11 also submitted a separate
report of elections to respondent No.3. Faced with these two rival
claims, respondent No.3, by exercising power under Section 77-
A(f), appointed an Administrator for conducting elections and
further directed the Administrator not to take any major policy
decisions. Accordingly, the election process commenced.
3. Respondent Nos.4 to 11, being aggrieved by the order dated
5 April 2022, preferred Appeal No.83 of 2022 under Section 152
of the Act before respondent No.2. That appeal came to be
dismissed by respondent No.2 on 24 January 2023.
4. The Administrator thereafter published a preliminary voters'
list on 10 May 2023 and a final voters' list on 22 May 2023.
5. Respondent Nos.4 to 11, being aggrieved by the dismissal of
their appeal on 24 January 2023, filed Revision Application
No.114 of 2023 before respondent No.1. According to the
71-wp7583-2023.doc
petitioners, they were not served with copies of the revision
application. It is their case that respondent No.1, without giving
them an opportunity of hearing, set aside the order appointing the
Administrator by order dated 1 June 2023. The petitioners have,
therefore, filed the present writ petition challenging the said order
of respondent No.1.
6. This Court, on 7 August 2024, issued Rule and directed both
parties to maintain status quo. Today, when the matter was taken
up, both parties agreed that the writ petition be finally disposed of
along with Writ Petition No.8444 of 2025 filed by the Society,
which challenges the communication dated 9 September 2024.
Accordingly, by consent of parties, both writ petitions are heard
finally.
7. Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioners, submitted that
the Society is a Type-A society. Therefore, its election is governed
by Rules 76A to 76N of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies
Election to Committee Rules. Referring to Section 73-I of the
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, he argued that the term of
the earlier Managing Committee ended in 2020 and no election
was held by either group until November 2021. In such a situation,
sub-section (2) of Section 73-I makes it mandatory for the
Registrar to appoint an Administrator under Section 77-A of the
Act. He submitted that respondent No.3 was, therefore, justified in
appointing an Administrator.
8. Drawing attention to Rule 76-O(3), Mr. Patil submitted that
even if it is assumed that respondent Nos.4 to 11 conducted
71-wp7583-2023.doc
elections, the Returning Officer under the said rule was required to
submit the result of election in Form E-17 to the Registrar.
Thereafter, the Registrar was bound to constitute the Committee
within 15 days from receipt of such Form E-17. According to him,
no such Committee was ever constituted as required by Rule 76-O.
Moreover, in the order dated 5 April 2022 passed under Section
77-A, the Registrar had specifically recorded a finding that the
election claimed by respondent Nos.4 to 11 was not in accordance
with Rule 76. He submitted that, in the absence of a validly
constituted Committee, and since two rival groups were claiming
to be the elected Committee, there was no legally elected
Committee after the expiry of the earlier Committee's term. Hence,
appointment of the Administrator to conduct elections was fully
justified and in accordance with law.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Diwan, learned Advocate for
respondent Nos.4 to 11, submitted that the legality of the
Committee consisting of respondent Nos.4 to 11 had already been
upheld by the Authorities under the Act. Therefore, in the year
2021, when elections were held, the Committee of respondent
Nos.4 to 11 was the only legally constituted Committee which had
the authority to conduct elections in terms of Rule 76-B. He
submitted that Rule 76-B authorises the Managing Committee to
appoint a Returning Officer approved by the State Cooperative
Election Authority or from among members of the Society who are
not contesting elections, before 60 days of expiry of the existing
Committee's tenure, and to communicate the same to the Registrar.
71-wp7583-2023.doc
10. He further invited attention to the impugned order passed by
respondent No.1. He argued that the order records acceptance of
the legitimacy of the Managing Committee consisting of
respondent Nos.4 to 11 by an order dated 5 April 2022 under
Section 80 of the Act. Therefore, respondent No.1 rightly set aside
the appointment of an Administrator under Section 77-A(1)(f). He
contended that the petitioners have not placed on record any order
of a quasi-judicial authority recognising their group as having legal
authority to manage the Society. Their claim was never accepted
by any authority. He submitted that respondent Nos.4 to 11
thereafter lawfully took charge of the Society and are managing its
affairs.
11. In rejoinder, Mr. Patil submitted that respondent Nos.4 to 11
had made a statement before this Court on 28 June 2023 to
maintain status quo, which they continued thereafter. This fact,
according to him, is not seriously disputed. Therefore, the
Administrator appointed by order dated 5 April 2022 continues to
be in charge of the affairs of the Society. He therefore submitted
that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
12. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and the
material placed on record. The core issue is whether respondent
No.3 was justified in appointing an Administrator under Section
77-A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and
whether respondent No.1 was right in setting aside that order
without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
71-wp7583-2023.doc
13. It is an admitted fact that the Managing Committee elected
in 2015 completed its term in the year 2020. Under the scheme of
the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, continuation of a
committee beyond its term is not permissible. Elections have to be
conducted before the expiry of the term so that the new body can
take charge without interruption. In the present case, no election
was held within the prescribed period. It is only much later, in
November-December 2021, that rival groups started claiming to
have conducted elections.
14. Section 73-I(2) of the Act lays down a clear mandate. It
provides that if the term of a committee has expired and no
election is held, the Registrar has a duty to act. The provision uses
the expression "shall," which leaves no room for discretion. In such
a situation, the law requires the Registrar to invoke powers under
Section 77-A and appoint an Administrator to manage the affairs
of the society and to ensure lawful elections.
15. The legal position therefore is that, after 2020, there was no
validly elected committee in place. Whatever claims were made
later by either group could not override the statutory requirement.
Both groups were seeking to claim legitimacy, but neither group
could show that the elections were conducted within time and in
strict compliance with the procedure prescribed under the Election
Rules. In this backdrop, respondent No.3, being the statutory
authority, was bound to step in.
16. By appointing an Administrator under Section 77-A,
respondent No.3 not only acted within his jurisdiction but also
71-wp7583-2023.doc
discharged a legal duty cast upon him by Section 73-I(2). The step
was necessary to safeguard the democratic functioning of the
society and to avoid a situation where rival groups continue to
fight for control without any lawful basis. The evidence on record
clearly shows that there was a vacuum in the management after
2020. That vacuum could only be lawfully filled by an
Administrator until proper elections were conducted.
17. Therefore, once it is established that the committee's term
ended in 2020 and no valid election took place within the required
time, the appointment of an Administrator by respondent No.3 was
both justified and inevitable under the scheme of the Act.
18. The contention of respondent Nos.4 to 11 that their
Committee was a legally constituted Committee cannot be
accepted. The statutory framework under the Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Election to Committee Rules, 2014 is very
specific. Rule 76-O(3) makes it mandatory that, after conducting
elections, the Returning Officer must submit the result of election
in the prescribed Form E-17 to the Registrar. The law then obliges
the Registrar to constitute the new Committee within 15 days from
the date of receipt of Form E-17. Thus, the constitution of a validly
elected Committee is not complete merely by holding elections or
by preparing a list of successful candidates. It requires strict
compliance with Rule 76-O, which culminates in the Registrar's act
of constituting the Committee.
19. In the present case, there is no evidence that the Registrar,
on receiving Form E-17, constituted the Committee within the
71-wp7583-2023.doc
statutory period. Absence of such record itself is sufficient to hold
that the Committee of respondent Nos.4 to 11 was never legally
constituted in the manner prescribed by law.
20. Further, the order dated 5 April 2022 passed by the Registrar
carries its own evidentiary value. In that order, the Registrar has
specifically recorded a finding that the election claimed to have
been conducted by respondent Nos.4 to 11 was not in accordance
with Rule 76. Once such a finding stands on record, it directly
negatives the claim of respondent Nos.4 to 11 that their
Committee was a lawful Committee.
21. It is therefore clear from the statutory provisions as well as
from the Registrar's order that the claim of respondent Nos.4 to 11
to be a validly elected Committee has no legal foundation. Their
claim rests only on their own assertion without support of any
procedural compliance or statutory recognition. In law, a
Managing Committee of a cooperative society comes into existence
only when the prescribed procedure is fully complied with. In the
absence of such compliance, no rights can be claimed.
22. Accordingly, the plea of respondent Nos.4 to 11 that their
Committee was validly constituted does not stand to reason and
cannot be accepted.
23. In absence of a duly constituted Committee, the Society was
left without a lawful Managing Committee after the year 2020.
This position is undisputed because the term of the 2015
Committee had already come to an end and no election was
conducted within the prescribed period. Thereafter, two rival
71-wp7583-2023.doc
groups came forward with claims of having conducted elections.
However, neither group could demonstrate compliance with the
mandatory procedure laid down under the Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Act and the Election Rules. The petitioners'
group could not establish that their election was recognised by the
statutory authority. Similarly, respondent Nos.4 to 11 failed to
show that the Returning Officer submitted Form E-17 or that the
Registrar thereafter constituted their Committee as required under
Rule 76-O. On the contrary, the Registrar himself, in his order
dated 5 April 2022, recorded a finding that the election claimed by
respondent Nos.4 to 11 was not in accordance with the prescribed
Rules. This clearly shows that there was no validly elected
Committee in existence after 2020.
24. Once this factual position is established, the legal
consequence automatically follows. Section 73-I(2) of the
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act casts a statutory duty upon
the Registrar that, when the term of a committee has expired and
no valid election is held, he must take steps under Section 77-A
and appoint an Administrator. The provision uses mandatory
language and leaves no scope for the Registrar to accept rival
claims which are not supported by compliance with statutory
requirements.
25. In these circumstances, the appointment of an Administrator
by respondent No.3 under Section 77-A was not only within his
jurisdiction but also in strict conformity with the Act. The Society
could not be left in a state of uncertainty or internal conflict where
two groups were making competing claims without lawful basis.
71-wp7583-2023.doc
An Administrator was therefore necessary to safeguard the affairs
of the Society, to prevent further disputes, and to ensure that
elections were conducted in a transparent and legal manner.
26. Thus, the action of respondent No.3 in appointing an
Administrator was in consonance with the provisions of law and
supported by the factual situation on record. Far from being
arbitrary, it was a step required to protect the functioning and
stability of the Society.
27. Respondent No.1, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, set
aside the order appointing Administrator. However, the material on
record shows that the petitioners were not served with the revision
application and were not given proper opportunity of hearing. An
order affecting the rights of members cannot be passed without
proper opportunity of hearing. The principles of natural justice
stand violated. This by itself renders the order dated 1 June 2023
unsustainable.
28. Moreover, respondent No.1 has not dealt with the statutory
requirements of Section 73-I and Rule 76-O, nor with the binding
finding recorded by respondent No.3 on 5 April 2022. Instead,
respondent No.1 has merely accepted the claim of respondent
Nos.4 to 11 without examining whether their Committee was ever
constituted in the manner provided by law. Such an approach
cannot be sustained.
29. The submission of respondent Nos.4 to 11 that they had
taken charge of the Society also cannot override the statutory
requirement. What matters is not mere possession of office but
71-wp7583-2023.doc
compliance with the law. Unless a Committee is constituted by the
Registrar in terms of Rule 76-O after receipt of Form E-17, no
group can claim to be a lawful Managing Committee.
30. In these circumstances, the order of respondent No.1 dated 1
June 2023 is contrary to law and in violation of natural justice.
The order passed by respondent No.3 on 5 April 2022 appointing
an Administrator was proper, legal, and justified.
31. Hence, the following order is passed:
(a) The impugned order dated 1 June 2023 passed by
respondent No.1 is quashed and set aside.
(b) Respondent No.3 - Deputy Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, shall within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of this judgment appoint an Administrator for the
Society. The Administrator shall take steps to conduct the
election of the Society strictly in accordance with the
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Election to Committee
(Amendment) Rules, 2019. The election process shall be
completed as expeditiously as possible so that the Society is
not kept under administration for a prolonged period.
(c) The Administrator so appointed shall not take any
major policy decisions. He shall confine his role to day-to-
day management and the conduct of elections. He shall also
comply with clauses 1 to 3 of the order dated 5 April 2022,
which continue to bind the Administrator.
71-wp7583-2023.doc
32. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no
order as to costs. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
