Bombay High Court
Mukund Bhilal Dodia (Deleted) And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary ... on 3 September, 2025
Neeta Sawant 54-WP-13102-2023.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13102 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 16452 OF 2023
Mukund Bhailal Dodia & Ors. .....Petitioners
: Versus :
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents
Mr. Nirman Sharma i/b. Mr. Rajiv Mane, for the Petitioners.
Tanu N. Bhatia, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State.
Mr. Sandeep Deshpande, for Respondent No.4.
Mr. D.V. Sawant, for Respondent No.5.
Mr. Vilas Tapkir for Mr. Kisan Ratnale-Contemnor.
Mr. Kishan Raosaheb Ratnale, Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Thane
Taluka present.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 3 SEPTEMBER 2025.
P.C :
1) By order dated 4 July 2024, this Court issued notice under Rule 9 of Chapter-XXXIV of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules for initiation of contempt proceedings against Respondent No.2-Mr.Kishan Ratnale. The reasons for issuing notice to the said Officer are reflected in the order dated 4 July 2024, which reads thus :
_____________________________________________________________________________ Page No.1 of 8 Wednesday, 3 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2025 21:30:44 ::: Neeta Sawant 54-WP-13102-2023.docx
1. By this petition, exception is taken to two orders dated 4 th October, 2023 and 6th October, 2023 passed by the Respondent No.2-Deputy Registrar by which the petitioners who are the committee members came to be disqualified and administrator came to be appointed. During the hearing of the said petition the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the order of disqualification of the members was passed on 4th October, 2023 on legally unsustainable grounds without any notice to them and immediately within a period of two days thereafter i. e. on 6th October, 2023, an administrator came to be appointed.
2. By order dated 16th April, 2024 this Court had directed the respondent No.2 to file affidavit in reply within a period of one week and ad-interim was granted in terms of prayer clause (c). Subsequently, respondent No.2-the Deputy Registrar-Kishan Ratnale filed an affidavit-in-reply dated 22nd April, 2024 stating that both the orders were passed on 4th October, 2023 and the officer signed both the orders on the same date, however the orders were sent by the clerk on two different dates. The copy of the order of appointment of Administrator which according to the petitioner was passed on 6th October, 2023 was annexed as Exhibit R3 at page 94 of the affidavit in reply.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners would point out that in order to support the stand that both the orders were passed on 4th October, 2023, there has been a tampering of office record as the date of 4th October, 2023 of respondent No.2 has been inserted subsequently in the order of 6th October, 2023. In view thereof, this Court had called for the original file from the office of the Deputy Registrar and the respondent No.2 was also directed to remain present.
4. Upon perusal of the original file, it appears that the document which is annexed to the Affidavit-in-reply is part of the original file which is produced.
5. However the learned counsel for the petitioner has tendered a copy of the order of 6th October, 2023 which was served upon them, which has original signature of _____________________________________________________________________________ Page No.2 of 8 Wednesday, 3 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2025 21:30:44 ::: Neeta Sawant 54-WP-13102-2023.docx respondent No.2 and on the said document there is no date below the signature of respondent No.2. Upon query by this Court, learned AGP is unable to offer any satisfactory explanation as regards the discrepancy in the copy which was served upon the petitioners which does not contain any date and the document with the date which forms part of the original file. Further the copy sent to the petitioners is unsigned and explanation given is that it is an office copy and the signature appears only at bottom right hand side of the page. The original office record shows the signature of respondent No.2 at the end of the order as well as on bottom right hand side of the page.
6. There is another reason to prima facie hold that the order of 6th October, 2023 was subsequently tampered with by putting date of 4th October, 2023. Order of 6th October, 2023 makes a reference to the order of 4th October 2023 passed under Section 75 (5) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act). In event both these orders were passed on the same day there would not have been any reference to the order of 4th October, 2023 passed under Section 75 (5) of the MCS Act. If both the orders were passed on the same date, the only observation which would have obviously come in the order was that today itself order has been passed for disqualification of the members. As there is a reference to an order passed on 4 th October, 2023 prima facie, it appears that the order of 6th October, 2023 was in fact passed on 6th October, 2023 and date of 4th October, 2023 was inserted subsequently.
7. Prima facie , it appears that in view of the stand taken by the petitioner that within a period of two days, the order of appointment of administrator has been passed there has been a tampering of original record by putting the date below the signature of the order passed on 6th October, 2023.
Prima facie, I am satisfied that there is interference with the administration of justice necessitating issuance of notice in contempt jurisdiction.
8. Issue notice to respondent No.2 Kishan Ratnale, the deponent to the affidavit-in- reply and the author of the order _____________________________________________________________________________ Page No.3 of 8 Wednesday, 3 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2025 21:30:44 ::: Neeta Sawant 54-WP-13102-2023.docx dated 6th October, 2023 under Rule 9 of Chapter XXXIV of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules returnable on 25th July, 2024.
9. Ad-interim relief granted earlier to continue till next date.
2) In pursuance of notice issued by this Court, Mr. Kishan Ratnale, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies has filed affidavit-in-reply.
3) I have heard Mr.Tapkir the learned counsel appearing for Mr. Kishan Ratnale, Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for the Original Petitioners and Mr. Sawant, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5-Society.
4) It appears that two separate notices dated 17 July 2023 were issued by the Deputy Registrar for initiation of disqualification proceedings under Section 75(5) and for appointment of Appropriate Officer under Section 77A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies, Act, 1960 (the Act). After receipt of notices dated 17 July 2023, Petitioner No.1 appeared before the Deputy Registrar. After hearing Petitioner No.1, both the show cause notices were taken to their logical end by passing two separate orders. By the first order, three office bearers of the Society came to be disqualified. This order is shown to have been issued on 4 October 2023. By the second order, an Authorised Officer came to be appointed to look after the day to day affairs of the Society under the provisions of Section 77A(b-1) of the Act. Petitioners contend that the second order issued under Section 77A was issued on 6 October 2023. They have accordingly filed _____________________________________________________________________________ Page No.4 of 8 Wednesday, 3 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2025 21:30:44 ::: Neeta Sawant 54-WP-13102-2023.docx copies of both orders bearing dates '4 October 2023' and '6 October 2023'.
5) When affidavit-in-reply was filed opposing the petition, it transpired that the second order under Section 77A is shown to have been signed by the Officer on 4 October 2023, though it bears the date of 6 October 2023. This difference in the date of signing and the date of issuance of order created suspicion of tampering of records. Petitioners produced certified copy of the order passed under Section 77A of the Act as received by them which did not reflect any date below the signature of the concerned officer. As against this, copy of the order produced alongwith the Affidavit-in-reply at pages 94 to 96 reflected date of 4 October 2023 below the signature of the Officer. Based on this position, Petitioners alleged tampering of records contending that the date of '4 October 2023' was deliberately inserted by the Officer below his signature to show as if both the orders were passed on the same day to obviate the need of publication of notice under Proviso to Section 77A(1) of the Act. This Court was therefore persuaded to issue contempt notice against the Officer.
6) Petitioners believe that the order under Section 77A was actually signed and issued by the Officer on 6 October 2023 as it refers to the first order passed under Section 75(5) of the Act on 4 October 2023. They believe that if both the orders were to be signed on 4 October 2023, the second order passed under Section 77A would not refer to the order already passed on 4 October 2023. Petitioners believe that the concerned Officer deliberately tampered with the record and inserted the date of 4 October 2023 in the second order passed under Section 77A with the ulterior motive of getting over the _____________________________________________________________________________ Page No.5 of 8 Wednesday, 3 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2025 21:30:44 ::: Neeta Sawant 54-WP-13102-2023.docx requirement of publication of notice on notice board as provided under Proviso sub-section (1) of Section 77A.
7) The above belief of the Petitioners however appears to be completely misplaced. Both the orders passed under Section 75(5), as well as under Section 77A were preceded by separate notices dated 17 July 2023. Both the orders refer to the said notices. Petitioners have however chosen to suppress the factum of issuance of notices dated 17 July 2023 and made a bald averment in ground clause (j) of the petition that the procedure under Section 77A was not followed before passing an order appointing Authorised Officer. Even when the petition was heard on 16 April 2023, it was argued on behalf of the Petitioners that there was non-compliance with the provisions of Section 77A of the Act before appointing the Authorised Officer. Petitioners neither pleaded nor informed the Court during the course of hearing on 16 April 2024 that they had received show cause notice dated 17 July 2023 proposing to initiate action under Section 77A. Though it is now sought to be argued before me that the notices dated 17 July 2023 is not sufficient compliance with the Proviso to sub- section (1) of Section 77A, this is not the pleaded case in the petition nor was this point argued during the course of hearing on 16 April 2024. I am at pains to observe that the Petitioners suppressed the factum of receipt of show cause notice dated 17 July 2023 and misled the Court to believe that the order appointing Authorised Officer suddenly surfaced on 6 October 2023, date of which was tampered by the concerned Officer as 4 October 2023.
8) The Officer has filed Affidavit clarifying the position that both the orders passed under Section 75(5), as well as Section 77A of _____________________________________________________________________________ Page No.6 of 8 Wednesday, 3 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2025 21:30:44 ::: Neeta Sawant 54-WP-13102-2023.docx the Act were signed by him on 4 October 2023. In this regard, it would be apposite to reproduce contents of the Affidavit dated 22 August 2024, paras-6 and 7 whereof reads thus :
6 I say that as per suggestions made in the Inspection report, Deputy Registrar had issued two notices on same date i.e. 17/07/2023 under Section 77(A) and 75(5) respecting hearing was conducted on the same date and Roznama on 8th August 2023.
During hearing society was represented by society Chairman, present Petitioners Mr. Mukund Dodija. Mr. Dodiya filed his reply to notice and under Section 77(A) and not for notice under section 75(5): His reply clearly mentioned Notice reference which bearing no. 55. Hereto annexed and marked as EXH-B is the copy of Reply filed by the Petitioner on behalf of the society.
7) I say that the matter was closed for final Order under section 75(5) and 77 (A) were passed. On 04/10/2023 both Orders were passed and signed. I say that signature done by me and date is mentioned before the signature. But there are two different departments and therefore outward branch received order copy on different dates one is received on 04/10/2023 and second is received on 06/10/2023. Therefore the date which is mentioned by the clerk of outward branch at the time of receiving. Both the Orders passed on merits and findings/suggestions made in inspection report under Section 89 A of MCS Act 1960.
9) It is thus clarified by the Officer that the orders passed under Section 75(5) and 77A are dealt with by two different departments headed by the same Officer which is the reason why the Clerks of the Outward Branch of the two Departments dispatched the two orders on different dates though both were signed on 4 October 2023. The Officer has also contended that similar practice is followed not only in Co-operative Department but in various other Departments also, where the Officer signs the order on a particular _____________________________________________________________________________ Page No.7 of 8 Wednesday, 3 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2025 21:30:44 ::: Neeta Sawant 54-WP-13102-2023.docx date and the same is dispatched on some other day. The difference in date of signing the order and date of dispatch thereof is not an unknown phenomenon.
10) Considering the above justification offered by the Officer, I am of the view that no case is made out for taking any action for contempt against the concerned Officer. The notice issued to Mr. Kishan Ratnale is accordingly closed.
11) It appears that Respondent No.5 Society has already been de-registered and the order of its de-registration is the subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court. Ordinarily, since the Society itself is de-registered, nothing would survive in respect of the challenges raised to the orders passed under Section 75(5) and 77A of the Act. However, both Mr. Sharma and Mr. Sawant would urge before this Court to defer hearing of this petition till decision of pending SLP.
12) List the petition on 19 November 2025.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Digitally
signed by
NEETA
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2025.09.04
20:12:58
+0530
_____________________________________________________________________________ Page No.8 of 8 Wednesday, 3 September 2025 ::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2025 21:30:44 :::