VISHAL T. LATHIA Vs. PRATIK POKHARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have assailed the legality, correctness, and propriety of the common judgment and order dtd. 15/4/2026 passed by Respondent No. 2, namely the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai, in Revision Application No. 65 of 2026 and Appeal No. 33 of 2026. By the said common order, the proceedings initiated by the Petitioners came to be rejected, and the reliefs sought by them were declined.

(2.) The factual matrix giving rise to the present proceedings, as projected by the Petitioners, may be briefly stated. It is the case of the Petitioners that Respondent Nos. 4 to 30, acting in concert and with an oblique and mala fide intention to impede the lawful redevelopment of Respondent No. 3 Society, approached Respondent No. 1, namely the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, R-North Ward. The said approach was made through MLC. It is contended that by lodging Complaint No. 6826 dtd. 26/08/2025 addressed to the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai Division, MLC sought cancellation of the Managing Committee of the Society.

(3.) It is further the case of the Petitioners that Respondent No. 1, without due consideration of the material placed on record and the submissions advanced on their behalf, passed the impugned order dtd. 27/11/2025 under Sec. 75(5) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, on the basis of the complaints received. According to the Petitioners, the said order is arbitrary, suffers from the vice of extraneous considerations, and is the result of undue external influence, thereby offending the principles of natural justice. It is stated that thereafter, on 18/12/2025, Respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice under Sec. 77A(1) (b-1) of the said Act proposing appointment of an Administrator or Authorised Officer. The Petitioners submitted a detailed reply on 30/12/2025 placing on record relevant documents and material in response thereto. However, without adverting to the said reply and the supporting documents, Respondent No. 1 proceeded to pass a further order dtd. 20/01/2026 under Sec. 77A(1)(b-1) of the Act.