Nilgiri Gardens Co-Operative Hsg. Soc. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thru Secretary ... on 20 January, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Nilgiri Gardens Co-Operative Hsg. Soc. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thru Secretary ... on 20 January, 2026

Bench: Amit Borkar

2026:BHC-AS:2636
                                                                                  24-WP-4520-19.doc


                   Sayali
                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 4520 OF 2019
SAYALI
DEEPAK             Nilgiri Gardens Co-operative Hsg. Ltd
UPASANI            thr. Chairman Mr. Mahadeo P. Gujar               ... Petitioner
Digitally signed
by SAYALI                     V/s.
DEEPAK
UPASANI
Date: 2026.01.20
                   The State of Maharashtra and Others              ... Respondents
17:35:08 +0530



                   Mr. Saket Mone with Ms. Anchita Nair and Mr. S.
                   Solanke i/b PNP and Associates, for Petitioner.
                   Ms. Heena P. Shah with Palak Ralak Ranka, for
                   Respondent No. 4.
                   Mr. S. L. Babar, AGP for State Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.


                                                       CORAM   : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                       DATED   : JANUARY 20, 2026
                   P.C.:

                   1.         The Petition arises out of an order passed by the State
                   Government, exercising appellate powers in proceedings arising
                   out of Section 21A of the MCS Act. The order of registration
                   passed by the First Authority has been set aside by the State
                   Government by way of the impugned order.

                   2.       The principal contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner
                   is that the date of hearing scheduled to be held on 08th August,
                   2018 was suddenly changed on 07th August, 2018 from Mumbai
                   to Pune with the result that the Petitioner could not remain
                   present at Pune and requested for conducting the hearing in



                                                          1



                        ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026                ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2026 21:01:42 :::
                                                               24-WP-4520-19.doc


Mumbai. However, the Appellate Authority passed the impugned
order holding that the hearing was concluded in Pune on 08th
August, 2018.

3.       The result of the aforesaid facts is that the impugned order
was passed without giving proper oral opportunity of hearing to
the Petitioner.

4.       In my opinion, therefore, such order could not have been
sustained as the same is passed in violation of the principles of
natural justice. Hence, I pass the following order:-

                                    ORDER

I) The judgment and order dated 20th February, 2019 in Appeal No. 661 of 2019 is quashed and set aside.

II) Appeal No. 661 of 2019 is restored to the file of Respondent No. 1.

III) The parties shall appear before the Respondent No. 1 on 02nd February, 2026 at 3.00 p.m. IV) The Respondent No. 1 shall decide the Appeal on merits within eight weeks from the date of first appearance of the parties, after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.) 2 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2026 21:01:42 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court