Bombay High Court Allows Petition Challenging Minister's Order Cancelling Bifurcation of Cooperative Society — Upholds Division of Commercial and Residential Buildings Under Section 18 of MCS Act. The court held that the Minister's order was based on erroneous grounds regarding consultation with a non-existent federal society and improper calling of objections, and that the long-standing independent functioning of the bifurcated societies warranted restoration of the bifurcation.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 508
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the order of the Minister under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which had quashed the bifurcation of a parent cooperative society into separate societies for residential and commercial buildings. The parent society, registered in 1960, had about 2000 members and owned 19 residential buildings and one commercial building at Lamington Road, as well as buildings at Chembur and Matunga. Due to disputes, the petitioner, representing the commercial building occupants, sought bifurcation under Section 18 of the MCS Act. The Divisional Joint Registrar, after following due process including a draft order and consideration of objections, passed a final order in 1996 dividing the parent society into four separate societies: one for residential buildings at Lamington Road, one for the commercial building at Lamington Road, and separate societies for Chembur and Matunga. The parent society appealed to the Minister, who allowed the appeal and set aside the bifurcation specifically for the commercial and residential buildings at Lamington Road, while upholding the other bifurcations. The petitioner, the society for the commercial building, challenged this order. The court found that the Minister's order was based on two erroneous grounds: first, that there was no consultation with the federal society, but the court noted that no federal society had been constituted and notified under Section 18, and the Deputy Registrar had forwarded the draft to the Bombay District Housing Federation which did not respond; second, that objections from members were not properly called, but the record showed that the parent society had issued a circular and the Divisional Joint Registrar had considered all objections. Additionally, the court emphasized that the bifurcated societies had been functioning independently for nearly thirty years, with separate management and financial arrangements, and that the Minister's order would cause disruption. The court also noted that the parent society had earlier expressed a desire for separate societies. Relying on precedents, the court held that the Minister's order was unsustainable and quashed it, restoring the Divisional Joint Registrar's bifurcation order.

Headnote

A) Cooperative Societies - Bifurcation of Society - Section 18 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Requirement of Consultation with Federal Society - The court held that since no federal society was constituted and notified by the State Government in the official gazette as required under Section 18, there was no question of consultation with a non-existent federal society. The Deputy Registrar had forwarded the draft order to the Bombay District Housing Federation, but it failed to submit any opinion. The Minister's reliance on lack of consultation was erroneous. (Paras 9, 15-16)

B) Cooperative Societies - Bifurcation of Society - Section 18 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Calling for Objections - The court noted that the Deputy Registrar had forwarded the draft order to the parent society, which issued a circular to members for objections. The Divisional Joint Registrar considered all objections before passing the final order. The Minister's finding that objections were not properly called was not supported by evidence. (Paras 10, 15-16)

C) Cooperative Societies - Bifurcation of Society - Section 18 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Long-Standing Functioning as Independent Societies - The court observed that the bifurcated societies had been functioning independently for almost thirty years, with separate management and affairs. The impugned order cancelling bifurcation at this stage would cause disruption and was not in the interest of the members. (Paras 12, 17-18)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Minister's appellate order under Section 152 of the MCS Act quashing the bifurcation of the parent society into separate societies for commercial and residential buildings was valid and sustainable.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Minister's order dated 27th March 1997, and restored the Divisional Joint Registrar's order of bifurcation under Section 18 of the MCS Act.

Law Points

  • Bifurcation of cooperative society under Section 18 of MCS Act
  • requirement of consultation with federal society
  • necessity of objections from members
  • functioning of bifurcated societies for long period as independent entities
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 Lawtext (BOM) (6) 106

WRIT PETITION NO. 2249 OF 1997 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17924 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 19704 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2249 OF 1997

2024-06-10

GAURI GODSE, J.

Mr. Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Karl Shroff, Ms. Lata Dhruv, Mr. Mitesh Naik and Mr. Ronak Shah i/b. M/s. Dhru & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajesh B. Jain a/w. Mr. Rohit Jain and Mr. Neha R. Doshi i/b. Legal Juris for Respondent No. 1. Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for the State.

Navjivan Commercial Premises Co-operative Society

Navjivan Co-operative Housing Society Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging the Minister's appellate order under Section 152 of the MCS Act quashing the bifurcation of a parent cooperative society into separate societies for commercial and residential buildings.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner, the bifurcated society for the commercial building, sought quashing of the Minister's order and restoration of the Divisional Joint Registrar's bifurcation order.

Filing Reason

The Minister allowed the appeal of the parent society and set aside the bifurcation of the commercial and residential buildings at Lamington Road, which the petitioner contended was erroneous and against the interests of the members.

Previous Decisions

The Divisional Joint Registrar had passed a final order under Section 18 of the MCS Act permitting bifurcation into four societies. The parent society appealed to the Minister under Section 152, who allowed the appeal and quashed the bifurcation for the commercial and residential buildings at Lamington Road.

Issues

Whether the Minister's order under Section 152 of the MCS Act quashing the bifurcation was valid given the lack of a constituted federal society and proper calling of objections. Whether the long-standing independent functioning of the bifurcated societies for nearly thirty years warranted restoration of the bifurcation.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the Minister's order erroneously relied on lack of consultation with a federal society that did not exist, and that objections were properly called and considered. Petitioner submitted that the bifurcated societies had been functioning independently for thirty years and that the impugned order would cause disruption. Respondent no. 1 (parent society) argued that the bifurcation was not in the interest of the cooperative movement and that the Minister's order was correct.

Ratio Decidendi

The Minister's appellate order under Section 152 of the MCS Act was unsustainable because it was based on erroneous grounds: (i) there was no federal society constituted and notified under Section 18, so consultation was not required; (ii) objections from members were properly called and considered by the Divisional Joint Registrar. Additionally, the bifurcated societies had been functioning independently for nearly thirty years, and cancelling the bifurcation at that stage would cause disruption and was not in the interest of the members.

Judgment Excerpts

The impugned order erroneously referred to the requirement of the opinion of the federal society. He submitted that there was no federal society constituted and notified by the State Government in the official gazette as referred to in Section 18 of the MCS Act. The Divisional Joint Registrar before passing the final order, considered all the suggestions and objections submitted before him as specifically recorded in the order. The petitioner society and the respondent society have been carrying out their business and affairs for almost the last thirty years as independent societies.

Procedural History

The parent society was registered in 1960. In 1990, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2052 of 1990 for appointment of an Administrator. In 1992, the court directed the Deputy Registrar to include a proposal for bifurcation into four units. In 1995, a fresh draft order was issued, and after objections, the Divisional Joint Registrar passed a final bifurcation order in 1996. The parent society appealed to the Minister under Section 152, who allowed the appeal on 27th March 1997, quashing the bifurcation for the commercial and residential buildings at Lamington Road. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging that order.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960: 18, 20, 152
  • Indian Societies Registration Act, 1860:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree on Ground of Cruelty Under Hindu Marriage Act — Husband's Failure to Repay Loan and False Allegations of Adultery Constitute Mental Cruelty
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Detention Order in Maintenance of Internal Security Act Case Due to Proximate Link and Public Order Disturbance. Daring Dacoity by Detenu's Gang Created Community Panic, and Explained Delays in Reporting and Execution Did Not Vi...