a) Registrar’s powers under Section 11 of the MCS Act are confined to determining the factual eligibility of prospective members. b) Revisional Authority’s intervention unwarranted—No jurisdiction to overturn well-founded findings of lower authorities. c) Society’s locus standi upheld—Right to challenge membership when it impacts legal, financial, or governance interests. d) Benefits of Revisional Authority’s order restricted to the five members who filed the challenge—Non-participating members cannot claim relief. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 19, 22, 23, 26, 31, 33)

The High Court set aside the Revisional Authority’s order and reinstated the Registrar and Appellate Authority’s findings.

Acts and Sections:

1. Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act)—Section 11, Section 25, Section 89A, Section 91, Section 92, Section 154

Subjects:

Membership Eligibility—Statutory Conditions—Bye-laws—Revisional Authority—Registrar’s Power—Locus Standi—Co-operative Society—Finality of Registrar’s Findings

Nature of Litigation: Writ Petitions challenging the order of the Revisional Authority which set aside the Registrar’s decision to disqualify the membership of 143 individuals.

Petitioners and Remedy Sought: a) Vitthal Sahakari Kukkutpalan Andi Kharedi Vikri & Prakriya Sangh Maryadit (Petitioner Society)—Sought quashing of the Revisional Authority’s order and reinstatement of the Registrar’s findings. b) 40 Members of the Society (Petitioners)—Challenged the legitimacy of membership granted to 143 individuals.

Reason for Filing the Case: Petitioners contended that the enrollment of 143 members in 2010 violated mandatory statutory provisions, rules, and Bye-laws—Eligibility conditions not satisfied and absence of due scrutiny.

Decisions Until Now: Registrar’s Order (9th September 2019)—Declared enrollment of 143 members irregular and invalid. Appellate Authority’s Decision (29th April 2024)—Dismissed appeal of six affected members. Revisional Authority’s Order—Set aside Registrar and Appellate Authority’s decisions—Prompted the present Writ Petitions.

Issues Raised:

a) Whether the Revisional Authority exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 154 of the MCS Act. b) Whether the Society had the locus standi to challenge the membership enrollment. c) Whether the eligibility conditions for membership were met by the 143 individuals. d) Whether non-participating members could benefit from the Revisional Authority’s order.

Submissions/Arguments:

Petitioners: a) Argued that the 143 members did not fulfill eligibility criteria—No documentary proof—Violation of Bye-laws. b) Contended that the Revisional Authority’s reliance on a solitary certificate by the village Sarpanch was improper—Certificate lacked jurisdiction and probative value. c) Stated that the benefit of the Revisional Authority’s order should extend only to the five members who challenged the initial order.

Respondents: a) Asserted that the Society acted arbitrarily by opposing memberships it had initially granted. b) Challenged the Society’s locus standi—Maintained that the Society should remain neutral in membership disputes. c) Defended the validity of the Sarpanch’s certificate—Supported the Revisional Authority’s reliance on it.