Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Minister's Order Setting Aside Registration of Co-operative Housing Society. Minister's Order Upholding Challenge to Society's Registration Based on Non-Compliance with Section 6 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is Valid.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Jeevan Niwas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and its Secretary, challenged an order dated 8/11/2010 passed by the Minister for Cooperation, Marketing and Textiles, Maharashtra State, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Minister had set aside the order dated 15/1/2009 of the Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, thereby upholding the challenge by the fourth respondent, Bhupender Pamnani, to the certificate of registration of the petitioner society. The petitioner society was registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 on 16/1/1987. The building comprised 14 units, of which 10 were sold to purchasers who joined the society, and 4 unsold units were held by the developer, M/s. Jeevan Development Corporation, which held share certificates. The fourth respondent was a partner of the developer. The society had obtained a certificate under Section 101 of the Act in 1997. The fourth respondent sought de-registration of the society, alleging that the registration was invalid as the application was not signed by the requisite number of persons as required under Section 6 of the Act. The Divisional Joint Registrar had dismissed the challenge, but the Minister reversed that decision. The High Court examined the facts and found that the application for registration was signed by only 9 persons, whereas Section 6 requires at least 10 persons to form a society. The court held that the Minister's order was correct and that the society's registration was invalid ab initio. The court also noted that the certificate under Section 101 did not cure the defect in registration. The petition was dismissed, and the Minister's order was upheld.

Headnote

A) Co-operative Law - Registration of Society - Section 6 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Challenge to Registration - The court considered whether the Minister's order setting aside the registration of the society was valid. The court held that the Minister had correctly found that the society was not validly registered as it did not comply with Section 6 of the Act, which requires at least 10 persons to form a society, and the application for registration was not signed by the requisite number of persons. (Paras 1-10)

B) Co-operative Law - Revisionary Powers - Section 154 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Scope of Revision - The court examined the scope of the Minister's revisional powers under Section 154. It held that the Minister could examine the legality and propriety of the order of registration and set it aside if found to be illegal. (Paras 11-15)

C) Co-operative Law - Certificate under Section 101 - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Effect of Certificate - The court noted that the certificate under Section 101 granted to the society in 1997 was not conclusive of the validity of registration, as the challenge to registration was on the ground of non-compliance with Section 6 at the time of formation. (Paras 16-20)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the order passed by the Minister for Cooperation under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, setting aside the registration of the petitioner society, is sustainable in law.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Minister for Cooperation dated 8/11/2010, thereby confirming that the registration of the petitioner society was invalid.

Law Points

  • Article 227 of the Constitution of India
  • Section 6 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
  • 1960
  • Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
  • Rule 7 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules
  • 1961
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (BOM) (03) 43

Writ Petition No.9759 of 2010

2020-03-16

C. V. Bhadang

2020:BHC-AS:6652

Mr. Kalpesh Nansi a/w. Sayeed Mulani for Petitioners; Ms. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 / State; Ms. Kinjal Jain a/w. Shaba Khan i/b. R. V. Govilkar for Respondent No.4

Jeevan Niwas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Mr. Tarachand Chawla

The State of Maharashtra, Shri. Harshvardhan Patil, The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division, and Mr. Bhupender Pamnani

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Minister for Cooperation setting aside the registration of a co-operative housing society.

Remedy Sought

The petitioners sought to quash the order dated 8/11/2010 passed by the Minister for Cooperation and to restore the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar dated 15/1/2009.

Filing Reason

The petitioners challenged the Minister's order which upheld the challenge to the society's registration, claiming that the registration was invalid due to non-compliance with Section 6 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

Previous Decisions

The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies registered the society on 16/1/1987. The Divisional Joint Registrar, by order dated 15/1/2009, dismissed the challenge to the registration. The Minister, by order dated 8/11/2010, set aside the Divisional Joint Registrar's order and upheld the challenge.

Issues

Whether the Minister's order setting aside the registration of the petitioner society under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is valid. Whether the society was validly registered under Section 6 of the Act.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioners argued that the society was validly registered and that the Minister exceeded his revisional powers. The fourth respondent argued that the registration was invalid as the application was not signed by the requisite number of persons as required under Section 6 of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The registration of a co-operative society under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 must comply with Section 6, which requires at least 10 persons to sign the application for registration. Non-compliance renders the registration invalid ab initio, and the revisional authority under Section 154 can set aside such registration.

Judgment Excerpts

The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 8/11/2010 passed by the second respondent Hon’ble Minister for Cooperation, Marketing and Textiles, thereby setting aside the order dated 15/1/2009 passed by the third respondent Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The net result is that the challenge raised by the fourth respondent to the certificate of registration of the petitioner No.1 society has been upheld.

Procedural History

The society was registered on 16/1/1987. The fourth respondent challenged the registration. The Divisional Joint Registrar dismissed the challenge on 15/1/2009. The Minister set aside that order on 8/11/2010. The petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960: Section 6, Section 101, Section 154
  • Constitution of India: Article 227
  • Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961: Rule 7
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeal on Deemed Dividend Issue Due to Lack of Book Entry and Benefit to Shareholder. Leave Encashment Issue Admitted as Substantial Question of Law Pending Supreme Court Decision on Validity of Section 43B(f).
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Discharge of District Judge in NSEL Scam Case — Rule 13(4)(ii)(b) of MJS Rules Violates Articles 14 and 311(2) as It Imposes Penalty Without Inquiry. The court held that discharge of a probationer without inquiry is puniti...