[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ujwal H Muranjan And Ors vs Panchvati Co Op Hsg Soc Ltd. on 24 February, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:9300
wp6065-2022-J-F.doc
AGK
ATUL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
GANESH CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by WRIT PETITION NO.6065 OF 2022
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI WITH
Date: 2026.02.24 INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3197 OF 2022
11:59:46 +0530
1. Ujwal H Muranjan
An adult Indian Inhabitant
Age_66_years, Residing at
Flat No. A4, A805 Panchavati Co-op
Hsg.Soc.Ltd. Marol Maroshi Road,
Andheri (East), Mumbai- 400059
2. Shiv Singh Rautela
An adult Indian Inhabitant
Age 70 years, Residing at Flat
No.A4/A/704, Panchavati Co-op
Hsg. Soc.Ltd. Maroshi Road,
Andheri East),Mumbai- 400059
3. Vaishali S Samat
An adult Indian Inhabitant
Age 65 years, Residing at :
Flat No. A5, A504 Panchavati Co-op
Hsg.Soc.Ltd. Marol Maroshi Road,
Andheri (East),Mumbai- 400059 ... Petitioners
V/s.
1. Panchvati Co-op Hsg.Soc. Ltd.
Through Chairman/ Secretary
Marol Maroshi Road,
Andheri (East), Mumbai
2. Deputy Registrar Co-op. Housing
Society .Ltd. K/E Ward,
Wadala, Mumbai,
1
::: Uploaded on - 24/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 24/02/2026 20:48:54 :::
wp6065-2022-J-F.doc
3. Shivaji Shinde
Inquiry Officer Panchvati Co-op Hsg
Soc. Ltd. Having his Office at
19/146, Anand Nagar,
Vakola Bridge, Santacruz (west),
Mumbai-400055.
4. The State of Maharashtra
Through Government Pleader,
High court Bombay ... Respondents
Mr. Mukesh Pabari, for Petitioner.
Mr. Subhash G. Bane, with Ms. Avneet Nagpal, for
Respondent No. 1.
Mr. S. L. Babar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 4/State.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : JANUARY 28, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : FEBRUARY 24, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The petitioners are members of the managing
committee of a cooperative society. They question the legality of
the order passed by respondent No.4 in an appeal. That appeal
arose from the order dated 2 November 2021 passed by the
Divisional Joint Registrar in Appeal No.205 of 2017. The said
appeal itself arose from an inquiry conducted under Section 88 of
the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and the report dated 9
August 2018. Alongside this, there was also a Revision Application
No.519 of 2017 which challenged the certificate dated 3 October
wp6065-2022-J-F.doc
2017 issued under Section 98 of the Act. Thus, the dispute travels
through multiple statutory stages, first an inquiry, then
proceedings for recovery, then appeal and revision, and finally the
present writ challenge. The Court therefore must first examine
whether the petitioners had a legal right to maintain the appeal
before the authority whose order is now questioned.
2. Section 152(3) of the Act clearly treats an order passed
under Section 88 as a final order for the purpose of appeal. The
scheme of the Act is important. After an inquiry fixes responsibility
and quantifies loss, the law intends finality at the appellate stage.
The statute then allows only a revisional scrutiny by the higher
authority. However, the record indicates that the petitioners filed
what is in substance a second appeal under Section 152. Section
152(4) expressly bars such a second appeal. Once the statutory
appeal is exhausted, the remedy shifts to revision alone. The
petitioners therefore invoked a forum which the statute itself does
not recognize. When a statute creates a right and also limits the
manner of its exercise, parties must remain within those limits.
The authority could not have entertained a proceeding which the
Act itself prohibits.
3. A similar defect exists in relation to the order passed in
Revision Application No.519 of 2017. Section 152 provides appeals
only against specified categories of orders. It does not provide an
appeal against an order passed in revision under Section 154.
Revision is supervisory. It is intended to be the last departmental
scrutiny. Permitting another appeal thereafter would defeat finality
and prolong recovery of society funds. Therefore, the appeal filed
wp6065-2022-J-F.doc
by the petitioners against the revisional order was outside the
statutory framework. The petitioners attempted to reopen a matter
already concluded by the competent revisional authority, which the
Act does not permit.
4. From the above position, it follows that Appeal No.205 of
2017 itself was not maintainable. Once the appeal was
incompetent in law, the appellate authority ought not to have
entered into the merits of the dispute. A decision rendered in a
proceeding lacking jurisdiction does not confer any enforceable
right upon the parties. In writ jurisdiction, the Court is concerned
not merely with correctness but also with legality of the process.
When the very foundation of the appeal was contrary to the
statute, entertaining the writ petition to examine factual or legal
merits would indirectly validate an impermissible proceeding. The
Court therefore declines to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction.
5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
6. It is clarified that dismissal of this petition will not prevent
the petitioners from pursuing such remedy as may be available to
them in accordance with law, if any survives within the statutory
scheme.
7. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, all pending
interlocutory applications stand disposed of as infructuous.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
