Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Nitin Kantilal Gandhi and Apurva Ashwin Desai, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging a resolution passed by the respondent, Sanket Cooperative Housing Society Limited, a society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioners were members of the society and alleged that the resolution was passed in violation of the society's bye-laws and principles of natural justice. They sought a declaration that the resolution was null and void and for consequential reliefs. The respondent-society contended that the resolution was passed in accordance with the bye-laws and after giving due notice to all members. The State of Maharashtra was also impleaded as respondent No.2. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the petitioners had an alternative remedy under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, by approaching the Cooperative Court, and that the writ petition was not maintainable. The court also found that the resolution was passed in compliance with the bye-laws and that there was no violation of natural justice as the petitioners were given an opportunity to be heard. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the resolution and directing the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy if they so desired. The judgment was delivered by Justice Amit Borkar on 5 December 2025.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Law - Validity of Resolution - Compliance with Bye-Laws and Natural Justice - Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - Sections 91, 152A - The petitioners challenged a resolution passed by the respondent-society alleging non-compliance with bye-laws and violation of natural justice. The court held that the resolution was passed in accordance with the bye-laws and after giving due notice to members. The court also held that the petitioners had an alternative remedy under Section 91 of the Act and that the writ petition was not maintainable. (Paras 1-10) B) Cooperative Law - Alternative Remedy - Exhaustion of Internal Remedies - Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - Section 91 - The court held that the petitioners ought to have availed the remedy of approaching the Cooperative Court under Section 91 of the Act instead of filing a writ petition. The court observed that the writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when an efficacious alternative remedy is available. (Paras 11-15) C) Cooperative Law - Natural Justice - Right of Hearing - Principles of Natural Justice - The court held that the petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing before the resolution was passed and that there was no violation of principles of natural justice. The court noted that the petitioners had participated in the meeting and had raised their objections. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the resolution passed by the respondent-society was valid and in compliance with the bye-laws and principles of natural justice, and whether the petitioners were entitled to challenge the same by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the resolution was valid and that the petitioners had an alternative remedy under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
Law Points
- Cooperative society
- Bye-laws
- Natural justice
- Resolution
- Members' rights
- Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
- 1960
- Section 91
- Section 152A
- Writ jurisdiction
- Alternative remedy
