[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mavji Ravji Patel vs Government Of Maharashtra And Ors on 16 January, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:1811
915-392-2026 with IA.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.392 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 333 OF 2026
Digitally
signed by
SHABNOOR
Mavji Ravji Patel ... Petitioner
SHABNOOR AYUB
AYUB
PATHAN
PATHAN V/s.
Date:
2026.01.16
17:19:21
+0530
Government of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Shailesh Naidu a/w Mr. Mehul Shah i/b Mr. Bharat
Joshi, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Snehal S. Jadhav, AGP, a/w Mrs. M. S. Srivastava,
AGP, for the State - Respondent No.1 to 3.
Mr. Drupad Patil i/b Shivraj Patne, Aditya A. Joshi, for
Respondent No.5.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : JANUARY 16, 2026
P.C.:
1. The petitioner, who was serving as the Secretary of the
respondent housing society, has been disqualified for a period of
four years in exercise of powers under Section 75(5) of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ("the MCS Act").
The said disqualification was imposed by the Deputy Registrar of
Co-operative Societies and was confirmed by the Revisional
Authority. The petitioner has challenged the said orders in the
present writ petition.
2. The disqualification rests on four alleged lapses. These relate
to placement of: (i) a plan for disposal of surplus under Section
915-392-2026 with IA.doc
75(2)(iii). (ii) the audit report for the previous financial year
under Section 75(5)(vi). (iii) the rectification report under Section
75(2)(vii). (iv) the annual budget under Section 75(2)(viii). The
statutory scheme requires the Annual General Body Meeting to
transact certain business. It is therefore necessary to determine
whether each alleged lapse is borne out by record and whether
such lapse attracts the penal consequence of disqualification.
3. The record shows that the audit report for the immediately
preceding financial year stood placed before the Annual General
Body Meeting. An earlier audit report had disclosed defects under
Section 82. The audit report relevant for the period in question
disclosed no such defects. The requirement of placing a
rectification report under Section 75(2)(vii) arises only when the
auditor has pointed out defects or irregularities. Where the audit
report is clean, the obligation to place a rectification report is
otiose. The law does not compel performance of a redundant act.
The Revisional Authority did not examine this statutory condition.
4. This Court in Kailash Maheshwari and others versus State of
Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No. 10587 of 2025 decided
on 25 September 2025) has considered the nature of compliance
expected under Section 75(2). In paragraph 26 of the said
judgment, this Court has held that placement of the audit report,
audited accounts, and rectification report constitutes core
compliance. The plan for disposal of surplus and the annual
budget were regarded as ancillary. The reasoning proceeds on the
nature and object of each item. Housing societies generally do not
generate surplus of commercial character. Consequently, non-
915-392-2026 with IA.doc
placement of a plan for disposal of surplus or budget does not by
itself amount to serious default warranting the extreme
consequence of disqualification. The principle laid down is one of
proportionality between the nature of default and the statutory
penalty.
5. In the present case, compliance with Section 75(5)(vi)
stands satisfied. The audit report disclosed no defects. In such
circumstances, compliance with Section 75(2)(vii) was
unnecessary in law. The remaining lapses are ancillary in character,
as held in Kailash Maheshwari. The authorities below treated
ancillary non-compliance at par with core non-compliance. Such
approach fails to appreciate the legislative scheme and the judicial
exposition placed thereon. The essential condition for invoking
Section 75(5) did not exist. The disqualification therefore lacks a
sustainable foundation.
6. The learned Advocate for the complainant argued that the
audit for the year 2025 has revealed serious irregularities.
Subsequent material cannot cure the jurisdictional defect. Section
75(5) contemplates examination of compliance with statutory
duties as they stood at the relevant Annual General Body Meeting.
Any later audit may give rise to independent remedies under the
Act. It cannot retrospectively validate an order of disqualification
rendered without existence of core default.
7. In view of the above analysis, the impugned orders are
unsustainable. The order dated 17 January 2025 passed by the
Deputy Registrar, as confirmed by the Divisional Joint Registrar on
915-392-2026 with IA.doc
12 February 2025 in Appeal No. 32 of 2025, and by the Minister
for Co-operation on 29 May 2025 in Revision Application No. 120
of 2025, are set aside to the extent they impose disqualification
under Section 75(5).
8. The petitioner shall be entitled to exercise all rights as
member of respondent No. 12 society.
9. All contentions of both sides on other issues are kept open to
be pursued before the competent forum in accordance with law.
10. The writ petition stands disposed of. The interim application
does not survive. It stands disposed of.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
