Bombay High Court
Urvinder Singh Pal vs The Deputy Registrar Co Operative ... on 6 October, 2025
2025:BHC-OS:18100-DB
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.24992 OF 2025
1. Urvinder Singh Pal ]
Age: 70 Years, ]
An adult Indian inhabitant having his ]
address at land bearing CTS No.1053/ ]
1052/ (1-22), Jayprakash Road, ]
Versova, Andheri (West), ]
Mumbai - 400 061. ]
2. Sonali Hemani ]
Age: 45 Years, ]
An adult Indian Inhabitant having her ]
address at land bearing CTS No.1053/ ]
1052/(1-22), Jayprakash Road, ]
Versova, Andheri (West), ]
Mumbai - 400 061. ]
3. Rakesh Arora, ]
Age: 70 Years, ]
an adult Indian Inhabitant having his ]
address at land bearing CTS No.1053/ ]
1052/(1-22), Jayprakash Road, ]
Versova, Andheri (West), ]
Mumbai - 400 061. ] ... Petitioners.
V/S.
1. The Deputy Registrar Co-operative ]
Societies, K/West Ward, Mumbai ]
having office at Gruhanirman Bhavan ]
Ground floor, Room No.69-A, ]
Bandra-East, Mumbai - 400 051. ]
2. Shri. Pravin Kakad ]
Authorized officer of Ganga Bhavan ]
Co-op. Housing Society Limited ]
An adult Indian inhabitant, having ]
His address at Ganjawala Aliens ]
Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., ]
CTS 2450, Ganjawala Lane, ]
Digitally
signed by
SUMEDH
NAMDEO
SUMEDH
NAMDEO SONAWANE 1/37
SONAWANE Date:
2025.10.08
10:41:57
+0530
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 :::
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
SV Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai-92. ]
3. The Mumbai District Co-op Housing ]
Federation Ltd. a Federal Society ]
Having its registered office at ]
103, Vikas Premises, 1st Floor, 11G ]
Vaidya Marg, Fort, ]
Mumbai - 400 001. ]
4. Shehnaz Kadar ]
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
5. Rita Chadha ]
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
6. IPSL Exports Pvt. Ltd. ]
A Private Company ]
Registered under the provisions of ]
Companies Act, 1956. ]
7. Geet Chadha ]
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
8. Sanchi Naresh Chadha ]
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
9. Khusboo Ashok Lala ]
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
10. Ashok Lala ]
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
11. Reshma Ashok Lala ]
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
12. Shubhdeep Kar ]
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
13. Gaurav Chanana ]
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
14. Manju Dutt ]
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
15. Nilofer Inayat Khan ]
2/37
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 :::
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
16. Rita Merchant ]
An adult Indian inhabitant. ]
17. Pradeep Kulkarni, ]
An adult Indian inhabitant ]
Respondent Nos.4 to 17 having their ]
address at Ganga Bhavan Co-operative ]
Housing Society Ltd., Jayprakash ]
Road, Versova, Andheri (West), ]
Mumbai 400 061. ]
18. Divisional Joint Registrar, ]
Co-operative Societies, Mumbai ]
Division, Mumbai ]
Having its address at Malhotra House, ]
6th Floor, Opp. G.P.O., Fort, ]
Mumbai 400 001. ] ... Respondents.
______________________________________
Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate (VC) a/w. Adv. Arun Panickar,
Adv. Nishant Chotani, Adv. Vinay Nair for the Petitioners.
Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate a/w. Adv. Jeet Gandhi, Adv.
Siddharth Joshi for Respondent Nos.4 to 17.
Mr. Manish Upadhye, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 18-State.
_____________________________________________
CORAM : KAMAL KHATA, J.
RESERVED ON : 26th September, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 6th October 2025.
Judgment :
1) By this Writ Petition, the Petitioners challenge:
(i) The Order dated 3rd June 2025 passed by the Respondent No. 1 - Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies (DRCS) (impugned order) - whereby the Petitioners were disqualified and 3/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc barred from being re-elected, re-co-opted or re-nominated as members of any Committee until the expiry of one term; and
(ii) The Order dated 17th July 2025 passed by the Respondent No.18 (Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies ('DJRCS') rejecting ad-interim reliefs seeking stay of implementation of the impugned order.
The aforestated two orders are hereinafter referred to as the impugned orders for the sake of brevity.
2) Mr. Kamat learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the rejection of the ad-interim relief by the DJRCS effectively defeats the Petitioners' rights by barring their participation in the election process of the managing committee. Thus, reliefs are sought by filing the Writ Petition.
3) Mr. Jagtiani learned Senior Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 17 raises a preliminary objection. He submitted that, the Petitioners have an efficacious alternative statutory remedy by way of Revision Application before the State Government under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ('Societies Act'). The Petitioners have, however, bypassed this statutory remedy and directly approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition, which is impermissible. He relied upon the case of Mohit 4/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc Bhardwaj & Ors vs. State of Maharashtra 1, Dilip s/o. Yenorkar vs. Divisional Joint Registrar2 and Siddheshwar CHSL vs. Sunil Apte & Ors.3 in support of his above contention.
4) In response, Mr Kamat argues that there is a distinction between the maintainability and the entertainability of a Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. He argued that the rule of exhausting alternate remedies is not an absolute bar but a matter of judicial discretion, particularly when the case falls within the recognized exceptions to the general rule. He submitted that the orders passed by Respondent No.1 and 18 are challenged on two such recognized exceptions:
(i) Violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
(ii) Existence of a binding judicial precedent in favor of the Petitioners.
5) He relied upon Shireen Sami Gadiali & Anr. vs. Spenta Co-
op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & Ors.4 and Harish Arora & Ors. vs. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors.5 in support of his submissions.
6) Mr. Kamath submitted that the Respondent No.1 has placed 1 2015:BHC-AS:25579.
2 2009 (5) Mh.L.J. 3 2016:BHC-AS:8809.
4 2011 (3) Mh.L.J. 5 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2833.
5/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 :::
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc reliance on alleged WhatsApp chats while arriving at his conclusions. He submitted that this reliance was in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, warranting interference by this Court. Neither of the two show cause notices contained any charge, much less a specific charge, based on these chats, even though they were treated as one of the grounds for passing the Order under Section 78A of the Societies Act against the Petitioner.
7) Relying on Gorkha Securities Services vs. Government [NCT of Delhi]6, he submitted that the show-cause notice must state material grounds necessitating action, with sufficient particulars to enable the noticee to effectively respond, since the fundamental purpose is to make the person aware of the precise case they must meet.
8) He further relied on Shankarlal Gunvani vs. State of Maharashtra7 to contend that Section 78(1) mandates a clear statement of material facts, particulars, and legal provisions constituting specific charges against the committee or its member.
9) He added that it is not expected of a person charged under Section 78(1) to inquire about material facts, particulars of charge and the law applied to first understand its nature and then furnish an explanation thereto. A failure to spell out definite charges vitiates the 6 (2014) 9 SCC 105 7 2011 [2] Mh. L. J. 673 6/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc findings, not only on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice, but also on denial of effective opportunity, as contemplated by Section 78 of the Societies Act.
10) He relied on Sadashiv vs. Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation and Textile8 to emphasize that a show-cause notice must give the person a fair opportunity to object or defend by informing him clearly of the case he must meet.
11) He submitted that, pursuant to the show cause notice dated 9th April 2025, the Petitioners filed their response on 15 th May 2025, categorically informing the authority of the resolutions passed in the requisitioned Special General Body Meeting held on 20 th April 2025 by a majority.
12) On the same day a supplemental complaint was addressed by the original complainants and an allegation was made that the Secretary of the society has been privately negotiating with certain developers based on certain WhatsApp chats. He submitted that neither did this allegation form a part of the original show cause notice or the subsequent show cause notice dated 9 th April 2025 and nor has the Respondent no.1 issued a fresh show cause notice on the basis of the supplemental complaint. He submitted that no opportunity to deal with such a complaint was given and the matter 8 2012 [6] Mh.L.J. 213 7/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc was closed for orders and the matter was referred to the Respondent No.3 for its recommendations. After receiving the recommendations from Respondent No.3 on 27 th May 2025 the Petitioner was granted an opportunity to respond to the same. The Petitioners filed their written submissions and the matter was closed for orders on 2 nd June 2025. An order was passed under Section 78A of the Act by the Respondent No.1 on 3rd June 2025.
13) He submitted that the Respondent no.18 rejected the ad - interim reliefs on 17th July 2025 without assigning any reasons. He further contended that the order dated 11 th September 2025 was passed without independent application of mind and without recording reasons.
14) He submitted that the Respondent no.1 clearly travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notices and expanded the proceedings in a manner impermissible in law.
15) He argued that since the foundation of a case was not laid down in the show-cause notices, Respondent no.1 could not make out a case not contained therein, relying on Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Champdany Industries Ltd.9 and Rajendra S. Bajaj vs. Union of India10.
16) Mr. Kamat submitted that the order in the first round of 9 (2009) 9 SCC 466 10 2024 SCC Online Bom 2183 8/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
proceedings was set aside by this Court's order dated 2 nd April 2025. Nevertheless, the subsequent orders dated 3rd June 2025 and 11th September 2025 were passed by the same Officer, indicating a predetermined approach to disqualify the Petitioners, without any lawful or reasonable basis. He further submitted that the Petitioners had denied the veracity of these WhatsApp chats in their written submissions, pointing out that these were third party documents that must be proved in accordance with law.
17) He argued that under Section 78A of the Act, Respondent No.1 must first form an opinion before issuing a show-cause notice and can take action only upon concluding that the charges mentioned in the notice are proved. No fresh show-cause notice was issued after the receipt of the alleged WhatsApp chats. He contended that the only logical inference from this omission is that Respondent no.1 did not consider these chats as sufficient grounds to disqualify the Petitioners under Section 78A, and therefore no notice with a specific charge was issued as mandated.
18) He submitted that the proceedings before Respondent No.1 were not inter partes but initiated by a statutory authority upon formation of an opinion. Therefore, merely granting the Petitioners an opportunity to file written submissions, in respect of documents that were not part of the specific charges in the show cause notice 9/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc cannot cure the gross violation of the principles of natural justice or the breach of the mandatory requirement of affording an effective opportunity to furnish an explanation or raise objections, as contemplated under the Act.
19) Mr. Kamat submitted that the alleged violation of the guidelines issued under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 are directory and not mandatory in nature, as held by a catena of Judgments. He relied particularly on Harish Arora & Ors. vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors. (Supra), especially paragraphs no. 47, 49, 54-56, 90, 99 and 203. He contended that, despite the entire legal position regarding Section 79A guidelines being placed before the Respondent No.1 and 18, they chose to ignore the same, although they were bound by Judicial discipline to follow the interpretation laid down by this Court. By ignoring binding law, the orders passed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 18, stand vitiated on the ground of legal perversity.
20) He submitted that the interpretation of Section 79A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) effectively removes the discretion of Respondent Nos. 1 and 18 to disqualify the Managing Committee members merely on the basis of non- compliance with such guidelines.
21) He relied upon the Special General Body Meeting held on 10/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
20th April 2025, which deliberated on the events that had transpired and, through a democratic process, passed resolutions ratifying the actions of the managing committee. He submitted that the General Body of the Society is the Supreme decision-making Authority under the scheme of the MCS Act.
22) He submitted that, the principle of self-governance, which underpins the functioning of the Act, must be exercised strictly in compliance with procedural safeguards and legal standards - which were completely absent in the present case.
23) In view of the above, the Managing Committee cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily or contrary to the collective will of the Society. On this ground alone, the orders passed by the Respondent No.1 and 18 stand vitiated and are liable to be set aside.
24) With respect to the alleged breach of the Order dated 10 th September 2024, passed by the Hon'ble Co-operative Court in dispute No. 224 of 2024, Mr. Kamat submitted that the said Court has exclusive jurisdiction under Section 148A of the MCS Act 1960, to take cognizance of any such breach or contempt. Therefore, it was impermissible for Respondent Nos. 1 and 18 to base their orders on the alleged breach of the Co-operative Court's Order.
25) Even otherwise, the alleged breach had been purged by the resolution passed at the Special General Body meeting held on 20 th 11/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc April 2025. Therefore, it was not open for the Deputy Registrar to take cognizance of any such alleged breach of the Co-operative Court's order.
26) Regarding the allegation of incurring expenditure beyond what was permitted under the by-laws towards payment of fees to the Society's lawyers and consultants, he submitted that in the Special General Body meeting held on 20th April 2025, the majority of members passed resolutions:
1. Endorsing all steps taken by the managing committee in redevelopment process;
2. Scraping the entire redevelopment process, revoking PMC appointment, and returning the earnest money deposits of all bidders; and
3. Ratifying the payments to the lawyers and other consultants of the Society in the course of the redevelopment.
27) He pointed out that the requisitions were approved by 30 out of 50 members of the Society. He further submitted that action based on the objections of a minority of 14 members could not be countenanced.
28) He submitted that the passing of such resolution was duly 12/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
communicated to the Deputy Registrar by the Petitioner's letter dated 15th May 2025. He emphasized that the General Body of the Society is the supreme authority under Section 72 of the MCS Act and is the final authority on all matters unless restricted by general law or the bye-laws. What is not expressly prohibited is deemed permissible, and the General Body is free to act within that ambit.
29) He relied upon Kumari Jethi T. Sipahimalani vs. Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal 11 particularly paragraphs 19, 20 and 27 in support of his submissions.
30) According to him, since all the actions of the managing committee were ratified by the General Body meeting held on 20 th April 2025, the original complaints stood rendered infructuous and negated. By overlooking these events, Respondent Nos. 1 and 18 failed to consider relevant material.
31) He submitted that Respondent Nos. 1 and 18 ignored relevant material on record, thereby rendering the impugned orders perverse. He relied upon Chandrakant vs. Divisional Controller12 particularly paragraph 17, in support of this contention.
32) He further submitted that members of a Co-operative society cannot assert rights contrary to the collective will of the majority. It is undisputed that the General Body took a conscious decision on 11 1973 SCC OnLine Bom 76.
12 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 6697.
13/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 :::
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc 20th April 2025 by an overwhelming majority. Therefore, the objections of a few minority complainants cannot form the basis for passing an order under Section 78A of the Act.
33) He submitted that it is a well settled in law that once a person becomes a member of the Co-operative Society, they lose their individual identity and rights, which merge with those of the collective body.
34) He submitted that a member has no independent right vis-à- vis the Society; only the Society can represent itself as a corporate aggregate under its seal. As long as the resolutions passed by the General Body are valid and not set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction, they bind not only dissenting members but also the concerned authorities.
35) He submitted that there is no provision in the Act, Rules, or any other Law allows minority complaints to curtail the rights or override the decisions of the Society.
36) He therefore submitted that it was not open to Respondent Nos. 1 and 18 to sit in appeal over the decisions of the General Body. He emphasized that the internal democracy of a Society cannot be thwarted by such impugned orders. He relied upon Bengal Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society 14/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc Ltd. vs. Sri. Aloke Kumar13, particularly paragraphs 56 to 60, in support of his submission.
37) The next contention concerned the finalization of the minutes of the Special General Body Meeting dated 17 th February 2024 without considering the member's comments. He submitted that this issue is sub-judice before the Co-operative Court in the Dispute No. 224 of 2024, and therefore the Respondent No.1 and 18 lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate it.
38) He further submitted that even otherwise, the resolutions passed in the meeting held on 17th February 2024 were ratified at the Special General Body Meeting held on 20 th April 2025, and this was duly communicated to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 18. He also contended that the Federal Society (Respondent No.3) issued its opinion dated 29th May 2025 merely reiterating its earlier opinion, which was already the subject matter of proceedings before this Court by Order dated 2nd April 2025.
39) He submitted that even after this Court's Order dated 2nd April 2025, Respondent No.1 and the Federal Society proceeded in the same manner as before, in disregard of the Court's directions.
40) According to him, the Federal Society too acted with undue haste, ex-facie indicating malafides and an attempt to facilitate the 13 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1404 15/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc passing of adverse orders against the Petitioners under Section 78 A of the Act.
41) He therefore submitted that, for the reasons stated above, the impugned Orders dated 3rd June 2025 and 11th September 2025 passed by Respondent No.1 and 18 respectively, are perverse and in breach of the principles of natural justice.
42) He accordingly submitted that the impugned Orders have become infructuous and factually unsustainable and prayed that the Petition be allowed.
43) Per Contra Senior Counsel Mr. Jagtiani submitted that, in addition to the aforesaid ground that the Petitioners have by-passed the alternative statutory remedy available under the MCS, the impugned acts of the Petitioners themselves have led to their disqualification from the Managing Committee. The said disqualification arises from their conduct and decisions taken in various Special General Body Meetings (SGBM), which were found to be prejudicial to the interests of the society. He submitted that the scope of section 78A of the MCS Act is not restricted merely to acts connected with redevelopment process, but extends to any act of commission or omission by a member/s of a managing committee, that is even remotely prejudicial towards the interest of a member or the society or where any element of fraud is disclosed. 16/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 :::
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc 44) Mr Jagtiani submitted that the scrapping of the
redevelopment process pursuant to third SGBM dated 20 th April 2025 does not in any manner alter the position or deter the initiation of an inquiry under Section 78A of the MCS Act. The findings recorded against the Petitioners in the impugned order are severe, and the acts attributed to them are ex-facie against the interest of the society. He pointed out that the Stay Application filed in the statutory Appeal, the Petitioners themselves have admitted that the society is in urgent need of redevelopment; yet paradoxically, they have chosen to scrap the redevelopment project. This conduct according to him, amounts to approbating and reprobating at their convenience, while disregarding the welfare of the society and its members.
45) He further submitted that the charges contained in the show-cause notices were clearly known to the Petitioners, and they were granted ample opportunity to respond to the case made out against them. The show cause notice was originally served on Petitioners on 25th June 2024 and following the remand by this Court on 9th April 2025. Not only did they file a detailed reply to the show- cause notice, but they were afforded several oral hearings, including further hearings after the production of the WhatsApp chats. The Petitioners did not contend that the WhatsApp chats were beyond the show cause notice either orally or in their written submissions filed 17/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc on 29th May 2025. The only contention raised therein was it must be proved as per section 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 which deal with admissibility to electronic records. Hence, the contention that the principles of natural justice were violated, according to him is wholly untenable.
46) Mr. Jagtiani contended that the impugned order is well- reasoned one in as much as it records the submissions of the parties, considers the material tendered and adequately sets out its findings and with cogent reasons. The relevant extracts are as under:
Finding 1: The MC members are responsible for the corrupt practices and mismanagement in this matter and the same is evident from the WhatsApp chats between the Petitioners No. 2 i.e., Sonali Hemani (Secretary) and the PMC.
Finding 2: There is no transparency in the tender process of the redevelopment of the Society and despite the Dispute Order, which restrained the Petitioners from proceeding with 'agendas related to redevelopment or any other matter in relation thereto', the MC went ahead and accepted Earnest Money Deposits from the prospective developers.
Finding 3: The MC has paid an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- 18/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 :::
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc to Mr. Abhishek Singh HUF without permission from any annual/special general meeting which amounts to financial irregularity.
Finding 4: The MC has violated Bye-law No. 108 of the Society as they circulated the minutes of the First SGBM without first circulating the drafts minutes of the same. Finding 5: The MC is doing redevelopment in violation of the Government Directive dated 4th July, 2019 under Section 79A of the Act and the Dispute Order.
47) He further submits that the WhatsApp Chats clearly demonstrate that the appointment of the developer was pre-
determined and attempts were made to bribe officials. The sequence of conversations demonstrates that cheques were prepared even prior to the receipt of quotations, thereby establishing that the financial consideration had been concluded in advance and that the call for quotations was merely a procedural formality. Such conduct, he argued, clearly amounts to an attempt to influence the outcome of the redevelopment process, and reflects a complete lack of transparency.
48) Additionally, it was submitted that the Petitioners violated the Dispute order dated 10th September 2024, by which the members of managing committee were specifically restrained from taking any 19/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc steps towards redevelopment in furtherance of minutes dated 27 th February 2024 of first SGBM and the notice and agenda dated 11 th July 2024 for the second SGBM. Despite such restraint, the managing committee acted in breach of the said order by undertaking the following actions:
i. Accepting bids from prospective developers and also accepting the Earnest Money Deposits submitted by the bidders.
ii. Circulating on 15th November, 2024 the final minutes of the Second SGBM.
iii. Calling for the third, in respect of redevelopment.
Taking the decision to scrap redevelopment. The decision to scrap redevelopment is itself a decision in respect of redevelopment. It could not have been taken.
iv. The MC disclosed appointment of developer on the notice board of the Society on 26th October 2024. v. The MC of the society organized a pre-bid meeting secretly with the proposed bidders/developers, without knowledge of the members of the Society.
49) He submitted that the provisions of Bhartiya Sakhshya 20/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
Adhiniyam, 2023 are inapplicable to proceedings before the Respondent No. 1 and 18, being quasi-judicial authorities, and apply only to Courts of law. Reliance was placed on Section 1 and 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and the decisions in Deputy Registrar v R. Balaiyan14, Tata Consultancy Services Limited v Cyrus Investments Private Limited and Ors.15 and Union of India v T. R. Varma.16. He also relied on a decision of the Delhi High Court to contend that the requirement of a certificate under Section 65B is not mandatory even in arbitration proceedings.
50) He further submitted that the Petitioners have attempted to create a false narrative of violation of natural justice by alleging that the charges were vague and not adequately described and that adequate opportunity of hearing was not afforded. He argued that the show-cause notice was broad and detailed. Once a notice adequately specifies charges, it is not necessary to list every piece of evidence that may be relied upon to substantiate the charge.
51) Relying on Ashok Kumar Sonkar v UOI17 and Board of Directors v K. C. Rahi 18, he contended that a plea of violation of natural justice must necessarily be accompanied by a demonstration of prejudice suffered due to the alleged deficiency in hearing or
14 Order dated 27th March, 2025 in CRP (PD) (MD) No. 996 of 2021 passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court at paragraph no. 2 15 2021 (9) SCC 449 at paragraph no. 173 16 AIR 1957 SC 882 at paragraph no. 10 17 (2007) 4 SCC 54 at paragraph no. 26 to 28 18 (2008) 11 SCC 502 at paragraph no. 7 & 8 21/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc disclosure of information. In the absence of such prejudice, the plea cannot be sustained.
52) He also submitted that the Government Resolution dated 4 th July 2019 issued under section 79A of the MCS Act - though directory - requires substantial compliance and insists upon transparency in the development process. The findings in the impugned order reveal that the Petitioners were predisposed towards certain legal consultants and Project Management Consultants (PMCs) thereby compromising fairness and neutrality. The conclusion in the impugned order, he submitted, were based on the cumulative effect of these actions by the managing committee.
53) Placing reliance on Dattatray Genaba Lole & Ors vs. Divisional Joint Registrar19 he argued that the Courts should exercise restraint in interfering with the election process at an intermediate stage. The said decision held that not every allegation of illegality or irregularity or every claim relating to exclusion from the voters' list warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Frequent interference at such stage would disrupt the election process and undermine its sanctity and democratic process.
54) He therefore submitted that the present case does not 19 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 4579 22/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
disclose any act of patent illegality or arbitrariness warranting interference by this Court. For all the above reasons, he urged that the Petition be dismissed.
Reasons and Conclusions:
55) Having heard the rival contentions, I draw the following conclusions:
56) I agree with Mr Kamat's contention that the rule of exhausting alternate remedies is not an absolute bar but a matter of judicial discretion, particularly when the case falls within the recognized exceptions to the general rule.
57) Having prima facie found merit with Mr. Kamat's arguments the Petition was heard. Notably, the challenge to the Impugned Orders are on the following grounds: -
1. Following the events and the purported resolution passed at the third special General Body meeting dated 20th April 2024, the substratum of the dispute between the parties stood resolved and no issues remained to be adjudicated.
2. The impugned order was passed arbitrarily and with preconceived mind, without considering the documents produced by the Petitioners pursuant to this Court's 23/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc Order dated 2nd April 2025.
3. The impugned Order was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice, as it went beyond the scope of the show cause notice dated 9th April 2025.
4. The Respondent No.1 relied upon the WhatsApp messages without complying with the provisions of Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023;
and
5. The Respondent No.1 failed to consider three vital aspects:
i) that the Petitioners acted with the support of the majority of members of the Society and that the minority members are bound by the decisions taken by the majority in the special General Body meeting;
ii) the Respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to make any observations regarding the resolutions as that jurisdiction vests in the Co-operative Court under Section 91 of the Act; and
iii) any alleged violation of the dispute order could only be adjudicated by the Co-operative Court.
58) Although several contentions have been advanced by the 24/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
learned Senior counsel for both sides, since the present Petition arises from an ad-interim order passed by the Appellate Authority, this Judgment is confined to examining the rival submissions on three limited aspects namely, (i) maintainability of the Petition,
(ii) the adequacy of the show-cause notice, and (iii). the alleged violation of principles of natural justice arising from the consideration of WhatsApp messages produced during the hearing.
59) The issue pertains to Section 78A of the MCS Act the same is reproduced herein for ready reference:
"78A. Power of supersession of committee or removal of member thereof.
(1) If in the opinion of the Registrar, the committee or any member of such committee has committed any act, which is prejudicial to the interest of the society or its members or if the State Co-operative Election Authority has failed to conduct the elections in accordance with the provisions of this Act or where situation has arisen in which the committee or any member of such committee refuses or has ceased to discharge it's or his functions and the business of the society has, or is likely to ; come to a stand-still, or if serious financial irregularities or frauds have been identified or if there are judicial directives to this effect or, if there is a perpetual lack of quorum or, where in the opinion of the Registrar the grounds mentioned in Section 78 (1) are not remedied or not complied with, or where any member of such committee stands disqualified by or under this Act for being a member of the committee, the Registrar may, after giving the committee or the member, as the case may be, an opportunity of stating it's or his objections in writing as provided under Section 78(1) and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and after consultation with the federal society to which the society is affiliated comes to a conclusion that the charges mentioned in the notice are proved, and the administration of the society cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of this Act, rules and by-laws, he may by order 25/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc stating reasons therefor,--
(a) (i) supersede the committee ; and
(ii) appoint a committee consisting of three or more members of the society otherwise than the members of the committee so superseded, in its place, or appoint an administrator or committee of administrators who need not be the members of the society, to manage the affairs of society for a period not exceeding 2[twelve months] :
Provided that, the Registrar shall have the power to change the committee or any member thereof or administrator or administrators appointed at his discretion even before the expiry of the period specified in the order made under this sub-section:
Provided further that, such federal society shall communicate its opinion to the Registrar within forty-five days, from the date of receipt of communication, failing which it shall be presumed that such federal society has no objection to the order of supersession or removed of a member and the Registrar shall be at liberty to proceed further to take action accordingly:
Provided also that, in case of a society carrying on the business of banking, the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), shall also apply and the committee shall not be superseded for a period exceeding one year:
(b) remove the member:
Provided that, the member who has been so removed shall not be eligible to be re-elected, re-co- opted or re- nominated as a member of any committee of any society till the expiry of period of next one term of the committee from the date on which he has been so removed:
Provided further that, in case of a society carrying on the business of banking, the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), shall also apply. (2) The provisions of sub-sections (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 78 shall apply mutatis mutandis, in relation to supersession or removal under this section.]"
60) The plain reading of the above Section makes it clear that its object is to penalize members of the managing committee who have 26/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc committed acts prejudicial to the interest of the Society or its members, or where serious financial irregularities or fraud have been identified.
61) The consequence of such findings is that the concerned member may be removed from the managing committee, the entire committee may be superseded, and an administrator appointed to manage the affairs of the Society during the interim.
62) It is pertinent to note that removal from the managing committee does not affect an individual's status as a member of the Society. This principle is clearly set out in Parvath Setty vs. State of Maharashtra and others20.
63) In the present case, the acts for which the Petitioners were disqualified pertain to their actions at various Special General Body meetings. Section 78A is not confined to redevelopment matters but extends to any act of a managing committee member, which may even remotely be prejudicial to the interests of the society or its members or involve fraud or irregularity.
Show Cause Notice - knowledge and opportunity
64) As seen from the record, the Petitioners were originally served with the Show Cause Notice on 25 th June 2025 by the Respondent No.1, following the remand directed by this Court. The 20 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1179 27/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc Petitioners were thereafter served with a fresh show-cause notice dated 9th April 2025.
65) An analysis of the show-cause notice reveals the following charges:
i. Violating of the laws, rules, bye-laws and circulars in relation to redevelopment;
ii. Predetermined appointment of PMC and Legal Consultant;
iii. Decisions taken at the SGBM without quorum; iv. Lack of transparency in redevelopment process and allegations that the committee was misleading the members to favour certain developers;
v. Lack of transparency in the tender process; and
vi. Arbitrary appointment of contractors.
66) Mr. Kamat's assertion that the WhatsApp chats relied upon
in the Impugned Order were beyond the scope of the show-cause notices deserves to be rejected. The reliance placed on Gorkha Securities Services (supra), Shankarlal Gunwani (supra) and Sadashiv (supra) is misplaced. The Petitioners had ample opportunity to respond to both the show-cause notices and the WhatsApp Chats. Admittedly, written submissions were filed after 28/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc such chats were placed on record. No objection of the nature now raised in the present Petition was taken at that stage, either orally or in writing. A mere denial, without dealing with the material evidence produced in support of the contentions is insufficient. This objection is, therefore, clearly an afterthought.
67) In my view, the object and purpose of issue of show-cause notice is to inform the noticee of the allegations made, so that an effective reply or explanation may be submitted and relevant facts within the noticee's knowledge may be brought on record. The notice must clearly communicate the substance of the charge to enable the recipient to meet the allegations effectively and not be prejudiced by a manifestly vague or ambiguous notice that leaves him uncertain or unable to respond. A show-cause notice, therefore, must not suffer from obscurity and unintelligibility that would deprive the recipient of a fair and adequate opportunity to defend himself. The principle of prejudice arising from vagueness or uncertainty must, however, be examined in pragmatic and reasonable manner. The above principles are followed from the decision of the division bench of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Service Tax v ITC Ltd.21
68) Further, the issuance of a show-cause notice does not amount to adjudication; it is merely a preliminary step in the process
21 2014 [36] STR 481 (Del) : MANU/DE/2746/2014 : C.E.A.C 31 OF 2014 & C. M. No. 6350 of 2014.
29/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 :::
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc leading to adjudication. The notice itself is not an order and culminates in a decision only after the evidence and material placed before the quasi-judicial authority or Tribunal are duly considered. Therefore, if the Petitioners had any objection to the material produced--such as the inclusion of the WhatsApp messages or their alleged fabrication--it was incumbent upon them to raise such objection at that stage. In the present case, no such objection was taken, either contemporaneously or in writing. Consequently, the plea of violation of the principles of natural justice is untenable.
69) The charges framed against the Petitioners were clear and adequate, and the WhatsApp chats merely served to supplement the existing material. It is not the Petitioners' case that the WhatsApp chats were introduced after the conclusion of the hearing. On the contrary, their written submissions deal with the WhatsApp chats, thereby clearly indicating, that no such objection was raised at the relevant stage. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be countenanced that reliance upon the chats was in breach of the principles of natural justice, particularly when the Petitioners had full opportunity to contest or contradict the same.
70) It was not as if the Petitioners were denied adequate opportunity to address the WhatsApp messages. There is neither any application on record nor even any assertion that the Petitioners 30/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc sought additional time from the Deputy Registrar to deal with the said material by filing an additional affidavit or raising objections with regard to its veracity or authenticity.
71) In my view, a mere objection that the WhatsApp messages were required to be proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (BSA, 2023) was insufficient. Even assuming the provisions of the BSA, 2023 were applicable, Section 109 thereof stipulates that the burden of proving a fact lies upon the person having special knowledge of such fact, particularly when the primary evidence was in the custody of the Petitioners. Accordingly, while the legal burden to prove the assertion may not shift, the evidentiary onus would rest upon the Petitioners to explain or rebut the material produced. It was therefore incumbent upon the Petitioner, at that stage, to counter the allegations either by producing a forensic report to establish that the chat messages were doctored or fabricated, or by seeking time to obtain such a report. At the very least, an objection of the nature now raised in the present Petition ought to have been taken by filing an Affidavit before the Deputy Registrar.
72) However, I find merit in Mr. Jagtiani's submission that the provisions of BSA, 2023 do not apply to proceedings before Respondent No. 1 & 18, who function as quasi-judicial authorities. 31/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 :::
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc This is evident from Section 1 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which expressly limits its application to Courts, and from Section 3, which defines the term "Court". This settled position is affirmed in Deputy Register vs. R. Balaiyan (Supra), Tata Consultancy Service Ltd. vs. Cyrus Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Ors . (Supra) and UOI vs. T. R. Verma (Supra).
73) In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court held that a Section 65B certificate is not mandatory even in Arbitration proceedings. Therefore, to impose such a requirement on Respondent No. 1 & 18 would be legally unfounded. Accordingly, I hold that Respondent No. 1 & 18 were perfectly entitled to rely upon the WhatsApp messages in their impugned orders.
74) In my view, therefore, the contention that the WhatsApp messages were required to be proved in accordance with the provisions of BSA, 2023 and, on that basis, that the principles of natural justice were violated, is wholly untenable and deserves to be rejected. A roving inquiry or a full-fledged trial cannot be undertaken where the statutory framework does not contemplate such procedure. The Petitioners, having failed to discharge their own duty at the appropriate stage, cannot now seek to invoke the principles of natural justice to their advantage.
75) In my view, the contention that the WhatsApp chats fell 32/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
beyond the scope of the show-cause notice is merely an afterthought and a post-facto justification advanced to assail the impugned Orders. As will be evident hereafter, the contents of the said chats bear a direct and material nexus with Charge No. 4 referred to hereinabove. Analysis of the WhatsApp Chats
76) A perusal of the WhatsApp chats reveals that the conversations between Petitioner No. 2 and the officials of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation clearly indicate violations of Section 78A of the Act. The messages clearly demonstrate acts of misconduct and fraud on the part of Petitioner No. 2.
77) The chats reveal that she privately negotiated with the developers and sought to secure illegal monetary gains for herself and other committee members by facilitating other eligible developers. The chats also contain references to alleged payments made to the Registrar for not dissolving the committee. These conversations clearly demonstrate an attempt to influence redevelopment process, indicating a complete lack of transparency. These chats support the charges levied and no separate charge was required to be levied for the same. Besides, the objection to the production ought to have been taken at the stage of production of those and not later.
78) In my view, such actions are clearly prejudicial and 33/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
detrimental to the interests of the society's members and the society's affairs.
Natural Justice
79) The assertion that the principles of natural justice have been violated is misplaced in the facts of this case. The Petitioners had a clear opportunity to counter the WhatsApp messages but failed to do so; the objection appears to be an afterthought. The show-cause notice was broad and detailed, setting out the case the Petitioners had to meet. A show cause notice need not enumerate every piece of evidence. It is well settled that the principles of natural justice do not operate in a rigid formula, and allegations of violation must be accompanied by proof of prejudice as held in Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. UOI (supra) and Board of Directors vs. K. C. Rahi (Supra).
80) From the above, it is evident that the Petitioners were given adequate opportunity to address the show-cause notice and the WhatsApp chats. The chats were placed on record and served on the Petitioners on 15th May 2025, and the matter was earlier heard on 22nd April, 6th May, 15th May and later on 19th May, & 2nd June 2025. Thus, there were at least two hearing after the said WhatsApp chats were filed, had the Petitioners raised objections at that stage, a supplemental show-cause notice could have been issued if necessary. Hence, the plea of violation of natural justice is unsustainable. 34/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 :::
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc Impugned Order - Well Reasoned 81) Upon a perusal of the impugned Order of the Appellate
Authority, I find that it is well reasoned, record the submissions of parties and the material placed on record, and set out the findings with clarity and adequacy.
82) In the facts and circumstances of the present case - where the challenge rests principally on the alleged non-observance of the principles of natural justice - I find no infirmity in the approach adopted by the quasi-judicial authorities .
83) I agree with Mr. Jagtiani's submission that the Petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy under section 154 of the Act. The impugned Order of 3rd June 2025 and the Appellate Court Order rejecting the stay dated 11th September 2025 passed by Respondent No.18 can be challenged before the State Government under Section 154 by way of revision.
84) By not approaching the State Government, the Petitioners have bypassed their statutorily remedy available, which is impermissible.
85) In Mohit Bharadwaj vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), Dilip vs. Divisional Joint Registrar (supra) and Siddheshwar CHS Ltd vs. Mr. Sunil S. Apte (supra) the Courts have rejected writ petitions where the remedy under section 154 has not been exhausted. 35/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 :::
sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc
86) The Apex Court in Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel 22
held that the supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported.
87) In my view, this Petition is directed against an interlocutory order passed by the Appellate Authority. All the contentions of the Petitioners can be appropriately considered in those Appellate proceedings. The views expressed herein are prima facie and without entering into the merits. The Appellate Authority shall decide the Appeal on in own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein. Accordingly, I find no reason for this Court to interfere at this stage. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
88) All parties to act on the authenticated copy of the order.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) Cases Referred:
1. Mohit Bhardwaj & Ors vs. State of Maharashtra 2015:BHC-
AS:25579.
2. Dilip s/o. Yenorkar vs. Divisional Joint Registrar 2009 (5) Mh.L.J.
3. Siddheshwar CHSL vs. Sunil Apte & Ors. 2016:BHC-AS:8809
4. Shireen Sami Gadiali & Anr. vs. Spenta Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & 22 (2022) 4 SCC 181 36/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 ::: sumedh 902-oswpl-24992-2025-J.doc Ors. 2011 (3) Mh.L.J.
5. Harish Arora & Ors. vs. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2833.
6. Gorkha Securities Services vs. Government [NCT of Delhi] (2014) 9 SCC 105.
7. Shankarlal Gunvani vs. State of Maharashtra 2011 [2] Mh. L.J.
673.
8. Sadashiv vs. Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation and Textile 2012 [6] Mh.L.J. 213.
9. Central Excise vs. Champdany Industries Ltd. (2009) 9 SCC
466.
10. Rajendra S. Bajaj vs. Union of India 2024 SCC Online Bom 2183.
11. Kumari Jethi T. Sipahimalani vs. Maharashtra State Cooperative Tribunal 1973 SCC OnLine Bom 76.
12. Chandrakant vs. Divisional Controller 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 6697.
13. Bengal Secretariat Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank and Housing Society Ltd. vs. Sri. Aloke Kumar 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1404.
14. Parvath Setty vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1179.
15. Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. UOI (2007) 4 SCC 54, paragraph no.
26 to 28.
16. Board of Directors vs. K C Rahi (2008) 11 SCC 502, paragraph no. 7 & 8.
17. Deputy Register vs. R. Balaiyan Order dated 27.03.2025 in CRP (PD) (MD) No. 996 of 2021 passed by Hon'ble Madras High Court, Paragraph No. 2.
18. Tata Consultancy Service Ltd. vs. Cyrus Investment Pvt. Ltd.
and Ors. 2021 (9) SCC 449, paragraph no. 173.
19. UOI vs. T. R. Verma AIR 1957 SC 882, paragraph no. 10.
20. Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel (2022) 4 SCC 181.
21. Dattatray Genaba Lole & Ors vs. Divisional Joint Registrar 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 4579.
22. Commissioner of Service Tax v ITC Ltd. 2014 [36] STR 481 (Del) : MANU/DE/2746/2014 : C.E.A.C 31 OF 2014 & C. M. No. 6350 of 2014.
37/37 ::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2025 21:14:54 :::