[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sanjay Kamlakar Mankar vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ... on 9 March, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:11458
15-wp9853-2025 with 16-wp9852-2026.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9852 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1893 OF 2026
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.9853 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1894 OF 2026
ATUL Sanjay Kamlakar Mankar ... Petitioner
GANESH
KULKARNI V/s.
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
The State of Maharashtra & Others ... Respondents
Date: 2026.03.09
16:18:33 +0530
Ms. Kshitija V. Moreshwar for the petitioner/applicant
in both IAs.
Smt. Mamta Shrivastava, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to
3-State in WP/9852/2026.
Smt. Mamta Shrivastava AGP for respondent Nos.1 to
3-State in WP/9853/2026.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : MARCH 9, 2026
P.C.:
Interim Application Nos.1893/2026 & 1894/2026:
1. For the reasons stated therein, both the interim applications
are allowed.
Writ Petition Nos.9852/2026 & 9853/2026:
2. Both these writ petitions arise from the same set of facts and
challenge the same controversy. The dispute originates from an
15-wp9853-2025 with 16-wp9852-2026.doc
order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Pune
City. By the said order, the entire managing committee of the
concerned housing society came to be disqualified for a period of
six years. The Deputy Registrar exercised powers under Section
79A(3) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 while
passing this order. Section 79A enables the State Government to
issue directions in the public interest or in the interest of proper
management of cooperative societies. Sub section (3) provides
consequences where a committee fails to comply with such
directions. The order of disqualification therefore rests upon the
assumption that the managing committee acted in breach of a
binding direction issued under this provision. The consequences of
disqualification is that a committee elected by the members loses
its right to manage the affairs of the society for a substantial
period of six years. Such a consequence cannot follow unless the
statutory requirements of Section 79A are clearly satisfied.
3. The reasons recorded by the Deputy Registrar indicate that,
according to him, the managing committee had incurred
disqualification because it had recovered development charges in
excess from certain members. This recovery was stated to have
been made on the basis of a resolution passed by the managing
committee on 27 February 2021. The Deputy Registrar took the
view that such recovery was contrary to a direction issued by the
State Government dated 9 August 2001. Proceeding on this
premise, he concluded that the committee had acted in violation of
the government direction issued under Section 79A of the Act. On
that basis, the entire committee was held liable and was
15-wp9853-2025 with 16-wp9852-2026.doc
disqualified for the statutory period. However, a closer reading of
the order shows that the reasoning rests entirely on the
assumption that the government direction covered the field of
development charges also. If that assumption does not hold good,
the foundation of the order itself becomes unteneble.
4. The text of the government direction dated 9 August 2001
read as a whole, it becomes clear that the State Government had
issued the said direction for regulating the amount of premium to
be charged by cooperative housing societies at the time of granting
membership to a new entrant. The direction specifies the
maximum premium that may be charged and lays down limits so
that societies do not misuse their position against persons seeking
membership. Importantly, the direction is confined to the subject
of premium payable for admission of new members. It does not
deal with development charges which may be collected by a
society for improvement, repair, or development of the property of
the society. The direction dated 9 August 2001 does not regulate or
prohibit such charges. Therefore, the reliance placed by the Deputy
Registrar on this direction appears to be based on an incorrect
reading of its scope.
5. Once this position becomes clear, the legal consequence also
follows. For attracting the consequences under Section 79A(3),
there must first exist a valid and subsisting direction issued by the
State Government under Section 79A. Secondly, it must be shown
that the managing committee has failed to comply with that
specific direction. In the present case, the direction relied upon
relates only to premium charged at the time of enrollment of a
15-wp9853-2025 with 16-wp9852-2026.doc
new member. The resolution dated 27 February 2021, on the other
hand, concerns development charges collected from members.
When the government direction itself does not prohibit or regulate
development charges, the passing of a resolution by the managing
committee on that subject cannot be treated as a breach of the
direction. In the absence of such breach, the very condition
necessary for invoking Section 79A(3) is not satisfied. Therefore,
the basis on which the Deputy Registrar proceeded to disqualify
the committee does not sustain in law.
6. In this background, the order passed by the Divisional Joint
Registrar assumes significance. The Divisional Joint Registrar
examined the matter in revision and considered the scope of the
government direction dated 9 August 2001. After examining the
material on record, he concluded that the direction relied upon by
the Deputy Registrar did not cover development charges. On that
reasoning, he held that the finding of breach recorded by the
Deputy Registrar was unsustainable. Consequently, the revisional
authority set aside the order of disqualification. Having examined
the record and the reasoning adopted by the revisional authority, I
find no infirmity in that approach.
7. There is no error apparent on the face of record. The writ
petition, therefore, stands dismissed. No costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
