Bombay High Court
Rekha Nareshchandra Ghosh vs State Of Maharashtra Throu. Divisional ... on 1 December, 2025
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2025:BHC-AS:52237-DB
Gokhale 1 of 3 4-wp-14683-24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14683 OF 2024
Rekha Nareshchandra Ghosh Through P.O.A. ..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents
__________
Mr. R. A. Yadav for Petitioner.
Ms. Aloka A. Nadkarni, AGP for State/ Respondent.
__________
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATE : 01 DECEMBER 2025 PC :
1. The present writ petition questions the legality of the order passed by the Revisional Authority. By that order, the Revisional Authority set aside the decision of the Deputy Registrar who had acted under the purported exercise of power under Section 154B-27 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.
2. The petitioner had approached the Deputy Registrar by filing an application under the said provision. The petitioner asserted that the bill issued by the housing society on the strength of a general body resolution passed in the year 2019 deserved to be declared null, void and illegal.
3. The Registrar, by order dated 30 January 2020, Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD BHASKAR undertook adjudication of the penalty amount which had been BHASKAR GOKHALE GOKHALE Date:
2025.12.01 17:51:55 +0530 imposed on the basis of the general body resolution. While doing so, he invoked the purported power under Section 154B-27. The ::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2025 20:48:00 :::
2 of 3 4-wp-14683-24 Deputy Registrar held that under byelaw 3(6), a flat may be used for several purposes including coaching classes. He therefore held that the penalty added in the maintenance bill for the year 2019 on the basis of the general body resolution was unsustainable in law.
4. The society carried the matter further by filing a revision. The Revisional Authority examined the scope of Section 154B-27 with reference to Section 91 of the Act. It found that the core dispute placed before the Registrar related to the validity of the general body resolution. It held that such an issue cannot be examined in a proceeding under Section 154B-27. On this view, the Revisional Authority allowed the revision filed by the housing society and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Registrar.
5. In my view, the order passed by the Registrar does not disclose any error of jurisdiction. The Registrar proceeded on the basis of the material placed before him. He examined the byelaws. He considered the nature of use permitted under byelaw 3(6). He recorded a clear finding that the penalty introduced in the maintenance bill had no foundation in law. This exercise was confined to the limited scrutiny permissible under Section 154B-
27.
6. The revisional authority rightly noticed that the grievance raised by the petitioner went to the root of the general body resolution itself. The validity of such a resolution is not a ::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2025 20:48:00 ::: 3 of 3 4-wp-14683-24 matter that can be addressed in a summary proceeding under Section 154B-27. The statute provides a specific forum under Section 91 for adjudication of disputes touching the business of the society. A challenge to a general body resolution squarely falls within that provision. When the legislature has created a distinct mechanism for resolving such disputes, the authority acting under Section 154B-27 cannot traverse beyond the narrow scope of that provision.
7. The revisional authority, therefore, acted within its bounds. It identified the true nature of the lis. It held that the Registrar could not assume jurisdiction to test the validity of the general body resolution in a proceeding restricted to correction of charges in a bill. This reasoning rests on a correct understanding of the Act. It preserves the statutory scheme. It ensures that matters requiring full adjudication are taken to the proper forum.
8. I find no infirmity in the view taken. The conclusion of the revisional authority deserves to be upheld.
9. Hence, there is no merit. The petition stands dismissed.
10. The Petitioner will be at liberty to adopt the appropriate proceedings as permissible in law.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 01/12/2025 20:48:00 :::