The petitioners, led by Ketan Govind Jadhav and others, approached the High Court claiming irregularities in the provisional voters’ list published on January 31, 2026, by the Authorized Officer/Election Officer. They alleged that the society originally had only 23 members, but the list inflated the figure to 61, potentially allowing ineligible persons to participate in upcoming society elections or related decisions.

Chronological Sequence of Events

• Pre-January 2026: Disputes arose among members of Respondent No. 3 (the co-operative society, under SRA oversight in Pune/Pimpri-Chinchwad) regarding membership validity. Petitioners claimed the society was limited to 23 original members, while others argued for expanded membership, possibly tied to slum rehabilitation allotments or redevelopment processes common in SRA projects.
• January 31, 2026: The Authorized Officer published the provisional voters’ list for society elections. The accompanying notice explicitly provided a remedy — interested parties could file objections on or before February 9, 2026, to address any errors, inclusions, or exclusions.
• February 3, 2026: Instead of filing objections with the Authorized Officer, the petitioners directly filed Writ Petition No. 1914 of 2026 in the Bombay High Court, seeking to quash the provisional list. In their petition (Paragraph 7), they asserted no alternative or equally efficacious remedy existed.
• March 6, 2026: The matter came up for hearing before a Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata. Advocates representing the parties — Mr. Sumant R. Deshpande for petitioners, Ms. Pooja Patil (AGP) for state respondents, Mr. Vishwanath Patil for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 (society-related), and Mr. Deepak R. More for Respondent No. 4 — were heard.During arguments, the court queried why objections were not raised as per the notice. Petitioners’ counsel admitted no objections had been filed, nor had any defects been pointed out to the officer.The bench scrutinized sample membership forms but noted the membership count (23 vs. 61) was a disputed fact needing evidence from both sides, including legally admissible proof.
• March 6, 2026 (Order Pronounced): The court dismissed the petition, holding:
  • An alternative remedy existed via objections (rejected petitioners’ claim of no remedy).
  • Petitioners failed to exhaust it, rushing to court prematurely.
  • Core issues were factual disputes unsuitable for writ jurisdiction, as High Courts do not conduct mini-trials without evidence.
  • Other factual controversies in the petition also required full evidentiary adjudication.
  The provisional voters’ list thus remains intact for now.

Implications and Next Steps

The dismissal underscores judicial emphasis on due process in co-operative society elections under Maharashtra laws. Such disputes often arise in SRA-linked societies amid redevelopment stakes, where membership control influences project approvals, flat allotments, and funds.

Petitioners may still pursue remedies by approaching the Authorized Officer (if time permits), the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, or filing a civil suit/appropriate proceeding for detailed fact-finding. Society elections or related processes can proceed unless stayed elsewhere.

Legal experts note this aligns with settled law: writ petitions are not substitutes for statutory remedies or fact-based trials.

Also Read: Smart Home IQ: How AI is Enhancing Intelligent Recommendations for Homeowners

The post Dispute Over Society Membership Balloons from 23 to 61 – High Court Refuses to Intervene, Calls It Factual Matter Needing Evidence appeared first on Square Feat India.

The case stems from Writ Petition No. 10003 of 2023, filed by Namdeo Suratsingh Chaudhary, a 55-year-old retired resident of Kalyan, Thane district. Chaudhary challenged orders passed by the Assistant Registrar and the Divisional Joint Registrar, which directed his removal from the membership rolls of Bijlee Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. in Santacruz (East), Mumbai, and the entry of the heirs of the society’s founder member, late Natu Ambersingh Patil.

Background of the Dispute

The controversy dates back to 1976 when, according to Chaudhary, Natu Patil transferred his membership rights—including Share Certificate Nos. 146 to 150—to him. The society’s Managing Committee approved the transfer on December 19, 1976, and Chaudhary has been recognized as a member ever since. He paid construction charges between 1976 and 1978, served on the Managing Committee from 1989 to 1993, and was even acknowledged in prior election disputes before cooperative courts.

Natu Patil passed away on August 16, 1981, without any recorded objection to the transfer during his lifetime. However, in January 2018—over 42 years later—his legal heirs (Respondent No. 1, including family members from Dhule district) approached the Assistant Registrar. They claimed that no valid transfer had occurred, alleging collusion between Chaudhary and the society’s then-Chairman (said to be Chaudhary’s relative). They argued that Natu Patil’s name remained in the society’s records erroneously, even appearing in the 2017 provisional voters’ list, and demanded their names be substituted as rightful heirs.

The Assistant Registrar, after hearing both sides, ordered on September 15, 2018, that Chaudhary’s name be deleted and the heirs’ names entered. This was upheld by the Divisional Joint Registrar in a revision application. Chaudhary then moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that the Registrar overstepped his statutory bounds.

Court’s Reasoning: Why the Registrar Overstepped Jurisdiction

Justice Borkar meticulously analyzed the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act—Sections 11, 22, and 25A—invoked by the respondents to justify the Registrar’s actions. The court emphasized that these sections confer only “narrow and specific” powers, not broad adjudicatory authority for intricate disputes.

• Section 11: This empowers the Registrar to decide preliminary, objective questions such as whether a person is an agriculturist, resides within the society’s operational area, or belongs to a government-notified disqualified class under Section 22(1A). The court noted that this is a “summary” jurisdiction meant for “simple and objective facts” that do not require detailed evidence or prolonged inquiries. It is not designed to handle “complicated disputes” involving succession, title to shares, or allegations of forgery in old transactions.
• Section 22: Dealing with eligibility for membership, this section allows the state to disqualify certain professions or classes. Subsections (1A) and (1B) link back to Section 11 for verifying such disqualifications. However, the court clarified that it does not authorize the Registrar to investigate past transfers or create/substitute memberships. In this case, no statutory disqualification was alleged against Chaudhary; the heirs’ claims were based on inheritance and invalidity of the 1976 transfer, which fall outside this provision.
• Section 25A: This allows the society’s committee (or the Registrar on direction) to remove names of those who have “ceased to be members” or are disqualified under the Act or rules. The court held that this is an “administrative correction” tool, presupposing an already-established cessation or disqualification. It does not empower the Registrar to adjudicate disputed titles, declare old transfers void, or substitute heirs based on unproven claims.

Justice Borkar observed that the heirs’ grievance involved “disputed inheritance, challenge to transactions of transfer, validity of documents, or allegations of forgery”—issues requiring “deeper examination” with witnesses, original documents, and cross-examination. Such matters, the court ruled, must be resolved in “proper forums” like cooperative courts or civil courts, not through the Registrar’s limited powers. The judgment highlighted that allowing the Registrar to delve into these would bypass the Act’s statutory scheme.

The court also addressed the Assistant Registrar’s findings on Chaudhary’s documents (photocopies of minutes and resolutions lacking seals or authentication), noting that while they raised doubts, this did not confer jurisdiction on the Registrar to substitute members. Additionally, the heirs’ 42-year delay and their non-residence in Mumbai (contrary to the society’s bye-laws) were flagged, but the core issue remained jurisdictional overreach.

Implications of the Ruling

This judgment is poised to set a precedent for cooperative societies in Maharashtra, where membership disputes often arise from family successions or historical transfers. Legal experts say it reinforces the need for aggrieved parties to approach specialized tribunals rather than the Registrar for complex claims, potentially reducing backlog in administrative bodies while ensuring fair trials.

Senior Advocate Atul Damle, representing Chaudhary, argued during the hearing that the Registrar’s orders were “without jurisdiction.” In contrast, Senior Advocate Anil Sakhare for the heirs relied on prior judgments to assert the Registrar’s powers, but the court distinguished those cases as involving narrower eligibility issues.

The petition was allowed in part: The impugned orders were quashed, and the society was directed to restore Chaudhary’s name in the membership register as it stood before September 2018. However, the court clarified that it had not decided the merits of title or succession, leaving those open for determination in a competent forum.

This ruling underscores the Bombay High Court’s commitment to upholding statutory limits on administrative authorities, ensuring that justice in cooperative matters is delivered through appropriate channels.

Also Read: Housing Society is the Boss: Bombay HC Strikes Down Registrar’s Role in Redevelopment NOCs

The post Bombay High Court Limits Registrar’s Role – Complex Housing Society Disputes Must Go to Proper Forums appeared first on Square Feat India.