Bombay High Court
Satish Kumar Satyaprakash Bhalla vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 8 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:43524
18.WP.12711.2017-B C.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12711 OF 2017
Satish Kumar Satyaprakash Bhalla ....Petitioner
V/s
State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ....Respondents
****
Mr. Rahul Motkari a/w. Adv. Mansi Pawar for Petitioner.
Ms. Kavita Solunke, Add.G.P. a/w. Mr. Ketan Joshi 'B' panel Advocate for the
Respondent-State.
Mr. Ashok B. Satpute for Respondent No.2.
***
CORAM : M. M. SATHAYE, J.
DATED : 8th OCTOBER 2025
P.C.:
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The Petitioner is a member in the Respondent No. 2-Co-operative Housing Society, in respect of Room No. 801 on 8th floor. The Petitioner approached the concerned deputy Registrar with his grievance about illegal charges of society outgoings /maintenance, on which the concerned Deputy Registrar had issued certain directions to the then Chairman and Secretary of the Respondent-Society under various communications/orders including those dated 30/06/2011 and 21/11/2011. The directions were, in essence, for issuing proper maintenance bills and charging in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. It appears that these directions were not followed and the Deputy Registrar was required to levy penalty as provided akn 1/5 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 00:19:32 :::
18.WP.12711.2017-B C.doc under section 79(3) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ("the MCS Act" for short). The order of penalty was passed on 26/04/2013. It further appears that this penalty of Rs.25/- per day was not paid, which resulted into an order dated 19/09/2013 passed under section 78(1)(b) r/w 73(FF)(1)(iii) of the MCS Act, disqualifying the concerned Chairman and Secretary for the period of 5 years. This order wad confirmed by the concerned Minister under order dated 23/07/2014.
3. In the meantime, the Respondent Society started recovery proceedings against the Petitioner under section 101 of the MCS Act. The concerned Dy. Registrar held on 01/08/2014 that since the dispute about recovery is complicated requiring detailed examination /cross-examination of concerned persons, dispute must be filed under section 91 of the MCS Act. The action under section 101 was thus rejected.
4. The dispute continued anyway, which again reached the concerned Deputy Registrar about maintenance charges and garbage dumping in lobby. Finally by order dated 16/09/2016, the Dy. Registrar disposed of the same, holding that complete action has been already taken under earlier orders, which have reached upto the Minister for Co-operation; despite that the Petitioner has again approached the Deputy Registrar. The Deputy Registrar noted that parties have been already relegated to file necessary dispute under section 91 of the MCS Act. It was further noted that grievance about registration of society can not be entertained by Dy. Registrar and Petitioner can adopt appropriate proceedings.
5. The Petitioner challenged the this order by filing Revision No. akn 2/5 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 00:19:32 :::
18.WP.12711.2017-B C.doc 881/2016 under section 154 of the MCS Act directly before the Minister for Co-operation. After noting the history of the dispute in short, learned Minister by impugned order dated 26/09/2017 has rejected the Revision, holding that the Petitioner has not filed revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai and has directly approached the Minister and therefore it is not maintainable.
6. Learned counsel Mr. Motkari appearing for the Petitioner submitted that power of revision under section 154 of the MCS Act is parallel and there is no bar for the Minister to consider the revision on merits. He submitted that though the Chairman and Secretary were penalized, the penalty was not actually paid. He submitted that the dispute about properly charging maintenance, property tax contribution and other charges remain unsolved. It is further submitted that other charges levied by the society are also under dispute.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Satpute for the Respondent- Society, pointed out that the maintenance and outgoing charges are being levied as per resolutions passed by the Society and they are in accordance with law. He submits that the entire dispute about maintenance charges is pending before the Co-operative Court at Mumbai in a substantive dispute under section 91 of the MCS Act. He further pointed out that under communication dated 31/05/2012, the Petitioner has already been informed that the Society has already given necessary adjustmens of additional amount charged to the Petitioner, alongwith interest.
8. It is not disputed that substantive dispute about maintenance and akn 3/5 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 00:19:32 :::
18.WP.12711.2017-B C.doc other charges as well legality and validity of concerned resolution/s forming basis thereof, is already under consideration before the court of competent jurisdiction in the form of dispute under section 91 of the MCS Act. As expected in the dispute like this, there seems to be conflicting versions about payment of maintenance dues by the Petitioner. Be that as may.
9. Fact cannot be denied of due course of law has been followed on the complaints of the Petitioner in the form of order of penalty being passed against concerned Chairman and Secretary, who in default have been disqualified. The grievance about maintenance amount and validity of the resolution/s cannot be considered by the Deputy Registrar in the complaint, as filed, and it is rightly held by the authority that proper course is to file dispute under section 91.
10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is not necessary to enter into the legal submission about availability of parallel jurisdiction under section 154 of the MCS Act. Suffice it to observe that the proceedings under section 91 as filed by the Petitioner and opposed by the Respondent-Society, shall be decided in accordance with law.
11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has disputed on instructions, the levy of property tax contribution as assessed by the Municipal Corporation. According to him, the amount of tax charged is not in conformity with the information received by the Petitioner under Right to Information Act (RTI) application. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Society has contended that according to the Society, the RTI information only indicates the rateable value and after multiplying the same with appropriate constant / multiplier, akn 4/5 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 00:19:32 :::
18.WP.12711.2017-B C.doc the proper tax has been demanded from the Petitioner. The Co-operative Court while deciding the pending dispute under section 91, shall also consider the dispute about proper charging of property tax contribution and other charges.
12. All rival contentions on merits of dispute under section 91 are kept open. Considering the fact that the dispute is pending since 2018, the hearing of the pending Dispute Nos. 370 of 2019, 362 of 2023 and 9 of 2020 are expedited.
13. The Petition is disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs.
14. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of this order.
(M. M. SATHAYE, J.) akn 5/5 ::: Uploaded on - 09/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/10/2025 00:19:32 :::