Case Note & Summary
The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the order dated 28 August 2019 passed by the revisional authority confirming the reversal of an order bifurcating the Momin Gujarat Co-operative Housing Society Limited. The society comprised 844 members across 14 buildings, including the Al-Akbar building with 94 members on a separate plot with independent access, permits, and utilities. Since 1997, subcommittees managed each building independently. Alleging mismanagement by the society's managing committee, the Al-Akbar members applied for bifurcation under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The District Deputy Registrar granted bifurcation on 3 August 2018 after site inspection and federal society report. The society appealed, and the appellate authority set aside the order on 6 November 2018, primarily on grounds of lack of majority support and common FSI/TDR usage. The revisional authority confirmed the reversal on 28 August 2019. The petitioners contended that all circular requirements were met, that the building was entirely independent, and that bifurcation served members' interests. The society argued that only 80 out of 844 members supported bifurcation, common development resources were used, and division was not in overall interest. The High Court examined the scope of Section 18, noting that Registrar's power is not mechanical and must be exercised only when essential in public interest or interest of members. The court began interpreting 'public interest' as benefiting the larger community. The judgment excerpt is incomplete; the final decision is not available in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Co-operative Society Law - Division/Bifurcation - Power Under Section 18 - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Section 18 - The Registrar's power to direct division of a society is not mechanical; it must be exercised only when it is essential in public interest or in the interest of members, or for securing proper management. The section requires compliance with procedural safeguards, including issuance of draft order and consideration of objections (Paras 19-20).
B) Statutory Interpretation - 'Public Interest' - Scope - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Section 18(1) - The term 'essential in the public interest' requires that the action benefits the public at large, not a few individuals, and refers to the welfare of a larger community connected with the society's functioning (Para 21).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate and revisional authorities correctly set aside the bifurcation order; whether the bifurcation met the requirements of Section 18 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the Circular dated 30 July 2004
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 18 of MCS Act grants wide power to Registrar for amalgamation
- division or reorganisation
- but must be exercised only when legal parameters are fulfilled
- 'essential in the public interest' means benefit to public at large
- not few individuals
- interpretation must consider interest of all members of the society
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (05) 115
Writ Petition No. 1126 of 2022
Citation not available, 2025:BHC-AS:47792
Ms. Shruti Tulpule for the petitioner; Ms. Snehal S. Jadhav, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3- State; Mr. Vineet B. Naik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shaikh Nasir Masih and Mr. Vishal K. Jagwani for respondent No.4; Ms. Amruta Kundap i/by Mr. P.D. Chainani for respondent Nos.5 to 13
Abdul Rehman Adam Dawa & 81 Others
District Deputy Registrar of Coop. Societies, K-West Ward, Mumbai Suburban District & 13 Others (including Momin Gujarat Co-operative Housing Society Limited)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order confirming reversal of bifurcation of a co-operative housing society
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the order dated 28 August 2019 and restoration of the order dated 3 August 2018 bifurcating the society
Filing Reason
Because the appellate and revisional authorities set aside the bifurcation order, which petitioners claim was correctly passed
Previous Decisions
Respondent No.1 (District Deputy Registrar) allowed bifurcation on 3 August 2018; Respondent No.2 reversed it on 6 November 2018; Respondent No.3 confirmed the reversal on 28 August 2019
Issues
Whether the appellate and revisional authorities correctly set aside the bifurcation order under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960
Whether the bifurcation was in the interest of members of the society and met the requirements of the Circular dated 30 July 2004
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that Al-Akbar building was constructed on a separate plot, had independent access, water and electric meters, and managed its own affairs; they alleged mismanagement by the society's committee; they met all circular requirements; authorities wrongly held lack of majority and common FSI; reliance on Unnat Nagar and Cosmopolitan III cases.
Respondent No.4 argued that only 80 members out of 844 supported bifurcation, majority support was lacking; 'interest of members' must consider all members; common FSI and TDR were used; similar Muntaha building application was rejected; bifurcation not in society's interest.
Ratio Decidendi
Ratio not explicitly mentioned
Judgment Excerpts
The expression 'it is essential in the public interest' in Section 18(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 means that the power of amalgamation, bifurcation, or reorganisation can be exercised only when the decision benefits the public at large and not a few individuals.
Section 18 gives the Registrar power to direct amalgamation, division, or reorganisation of cooperative societies. The power is wide, but it is not mechanical.
Procedural History
On 26 June 2015, members of Muntaha building filed an application seeking bifurcation, which was rejected; revision pending. On 6 September 2016, Al-Akbar subcommittee requested respondent No.4 society for bifurcation, which was refused. On 9 March 2017, petitioners filed application under Section 18 before respondent No.1 seeking bifurcation. Respondent No.4 opposed. Site visit conducted on 23 January 2018. Federal Society report on 18 May 2018 favoured bifurcation. Draft order prepared on 4 June 2018, received by respondent No.4 on 7 June 2018. Respondent No.4 resolved to challenge on 8 June 2018, filed appeal on 30 July 2018. Final order allowing bifurcation passed on 3 August 2018. Appeal No.197/2018 allowed on 6 November 2018, setting aside bifurcation. Revision Application No.8/2018 dismissed on 28 August 2019. Present writ petition filed challenging revisional order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960: Section 18, Section 17
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules: Rule 19
