[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Rajitta Hemwani vs The State Of Maharashtrathrough The ... on 28 April, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:20282
76-wp15644-25 Final
MPBalekar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 15644 OF 2025
Rajitta Hemwani and Anr. ... Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondent
Mr. Harish Pawar a/w Vaishali B. for the petitioner.
Mr. Dhavan Shah for respondent Nos. 6 to 9.
Mrs. Mamta Shrivastva, AGP, for the State -
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : APRIL 28, 2026
P.C.:
1. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. The challenge in present writ petition is arising from one
order passed by Deputy Registrar, whereby petitioner is
disqualified for period of five years from continuing as member of
managing committee of respondent No.10 society.
3. It is to be noted that such disqualification carries civil effect
and also stigma upon person who is otherwise elected
representative of society. Therefore, such order cannot be passed in
routine manner. The authority exercising such power is expected to
act with due care, proper application of mind, and after giving fair
opportunity.
4. In present case, petitioner is saying that this order is not
76-wp15644-25 Final
supported by proper basis in law. When such contention is raised,
Court is required to examine not only the correctness of final order
but also the process by which such conclusion is reached.
5. On careful reading of show cause notice dated 25 April
2022, one important aspect becomes visible. The notice is issued
mainly to managing committee members who were holding office
during period from 2009 to 2020. The last paragraph of said notice
clearly calls upon those members to explain why action should not
be taken for breaches mentioned therein. Thus, scope of notice is
confined to acts and omissions during that particular time period.
However, the final order passed under Section 75(5) of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 appears to travel
beyond this scope. It is passed against present petitioners, who
admittedly assumed charge after year 2020. This creates serious
difficulty. Because a person cannot be asked to answer for acts
which are not attributed to him in notice. The inquiry report also
supports this position, as it shows that investigation was mainly
about conduct of earlier committee functioning between 2009 and
2020. Therefore, there is mismatch between notice, inquiry, and
final order. If notice was limited to earlier committee, then
extending consequences to subsequent committee members,
without specific allegations, appears improper and contrary to
basic requirement of fairness.
6. It further appears that after passing of order under Section
75(5), authority has also proceeded under Section 77A of the Act
and appointed an authorised officer. This indicates that entire
management of society was taken over in continuation of earlier
76-wp15644-25 Final
findings. The petitioners have challenged both these actions by
filing revision before Revisional Authority. The Revisional
Authority, by common judgment, has confirmed both orders.
However, while confirming, it does not appear that detailed
distinction was made between role of earlier committee and
present petitioners. The confirmation seems to be on general
acceptance of inquiry findings, without separately examining
whether present petitioners could be made liable on basis of those
findings.
7. At the time of hearing, learned Advocate for petitioners, on
instructions, has restricted his challenge only to that part of order
which disqualifies petitioners for five years under Section 75(5) of
the Act. He is not pressing other aspects such as appointment of
authorised officer under Section 77A. Therefore, Court is now
concerned only with question whether disqualification of
petitioners is sustainable in law.
8. Considering entire material, it appears that show cause
notice itself was confined to managing committee members of
period 2009 to 2020. The petitioners admittedly came into picture
after 2020. There is no clear allegation in notice attributing
specific misconduct to them. In absence of such allegation,
petitioners were deprived of proper opportunity to defend
themselves on relevant grounds. Further, disqualification cannot be
imposed on basis of acts of previous committee, unless there is
material showing participation, knowledge, or continuation of
illegality by present members. The order to the extent it
disqualifies petitioners for period of five years cannot be sustained
76-wp15644-25 Final
and deserves to be set aside. However, this conclusion is based on
overall assessment of notice, inquiry, and order together, and not
merely on technical ground alone.
9. Hence, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses a(i)
and (iii).
10. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
