Neeta Sawant 11-WP-5098-2019.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5098 OF 2019 Anil Chandrakant Parel ..Petitioner … : Versus : Mharal Samudayik Sahakari Sheti Sanstha Maryadit, through its Vice Chairman & Ors. .Respondents … WRIT PETITION NO. 5015 OF 2019 Laxmibai Baban Parel (since decd.) through Legal Heirs & Ors. ..Petitioners … : Versus : Mharal Samudayik Sahakari Sheti Sanstha Maryadit, through its Vice Chairman & Ors. .Respondents … Mr. Dilip Bodake with Mr. Shreeniwas Magar and Ms. Shraddha Pawar, for the Petitioners. Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP for State in WP-5098 of 2019. Ms. S.D. Chipade, AGP for State in WP-5015 of 2019. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : 10 SEPTEMBER 2026. _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 1 of 4 Thursday, 10 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 11-WP-5098-2019.docx P.C : 1) By these petitions, the Petitioners have challenged order dated 3 November 2018 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai allowing Revision Application Nos. 92 of 2017 and 93 of 2017 preferred by the First Respondent- Society and setting aside the order dated 24 July 2017 passed by the Deputy Registrar. By order dated 24 July 2017, the Deputy Registrar had allowed the applications preferred by the Petitioners under Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) and had granted membership to the Petitioners in respect of the First Respondent-society. 2) I have heard Mr. Bodake the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Mr.Pagare, the learned counsel who used to represent Respondent No.1-society submits that an Administrator has been appointed on the society. It appears that Mohan A. Sarak, Administrator of Respondent no.1-society had appeared before this Court and had filed a detailed Affidavit-in-Reply dated 3 April 2024. However, no counsel has appeared on behalf of the Administrator. The petitions are pending since the year 2019 and it is not necessary to await appearance on behalf of the Administrator of Respondent No.1-society. 3) Perusal of the findings recorded by the Divisional Joint Registrar would indicate total perversity. The Divisional Joint Registrar has recorded a finding that Petitioners had not submitted applications as per Rule 19A of the MCS Rules, 1961 and that they had merely tendered _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 2 of 4 Thursday, 10 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 11-WP-5098-2019.docx applications for membership by way of inheritance. However, the Deputy Registrar has not recorded any such finding in the order dated 24 July 2017. The records on the other hand indicates that proper applications were filed by the Petitioners for seeking membership of the First Respondent-society. 4) The Divisional Joint Registrar has thereafter recorded a finding that Petitioners did not produce any concrete evidence of membership. However, Petitioners have already been issued a heirship certificate which were produced by there on record. More importantly, no other heir has raised any disputes questioning grant of membership to the Petitioners. There is no inter-se dispute amongst the family members. The challenge to the membership was not raised by any family member but the same was raised by the First Respondent-society. Therefore, it was not necessary for the Divisional Joint Registrar to go into the issue of capacity of the Petitioners as legal heirs of the original member. The Divisional Joint Registrar has thereafter recorded a finding that there was no evidence of the original member depositing any amount for securing the shares of the society. Apart from the fact that there is ample material on record about payment of share money, the Administrator has filed Affidavit stating in paras-5 and 6 as under : 5. I say that after perusal of the record maintained in the office especially audit report of the society for the year 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2008, mentioned 24 members having the members share holding of Rs. 7115 - and the said members / have deposited the deposit amount of Rs. 4,39,000 - with the Respondent No. 1 / Society. I say that in the said audit report a list of 24 members who are shareholders was enclosed wherein the Petitioner s predecessor namely Late ' Chandrakant Tukaram Parel was shown at Sr. No.4 having share of Rs. 80 -. I say / that in the said Audit Report it was mentioned that up to 31.03.2006 and 30.03.2007 the members advance amount is of Rs. 4,35,000 -. Hereto annexed / and marked as Exhibit R-2 is copy of the Audit Report of the year 01.04.2004 to ' ' 31.03.2008 of the Respondent No. 1 Society. _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 3 of 4 Thursday, 10 September 2026 Neeta Sawant 11-WP-5098-2019.docx 6. I say that after perusal of the record maintained in the office especially audit report of the society for the year 2008-2009, it shows that there were mentioned 24 members having shareholding of Rs.7115 - and the said members have / deposited the advance amount of Rs.4,45,000 - with the Respondent No.1 Society. / I say that in the said audit report a list of 24 members who are shareholders was enclosed wherein Petitioner s predecessor namely Late Chandrakant Tukaram ' Parel was shown at Sr.No.9 having advance amount of Rs.20,000 -. I say that in / the said Audit Report it was mentioned that up to 31.03.2009 the members advance amount is of Rs.4,45,000 -. Hereto annexed and marked as / Exhibit R-3 ' ' is copy of the Audit Report of the year 2008-2009 of the Respondent No.1 Society. 5) Thus, the finding recorded by the Divisional Joint Registrar about absence of any evidence of payment of share money is clearly perverse. 6) In view of the above discussion, the impugned order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar is clearly unsustainable and liable to be set aside. The petitions accordingly succeed and I proceed to pass the following order : (i)The order dated 3 November 2018 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar is set aside. The order dated 24 July 2017 passed by the Deputy Registrar is confirmed. (ii)The Administrator shall forthwith implement the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 24 July 2017. 7) The Writ Petitions are allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] _____________________________________________________________________________ PAGE NOS. 4 of 4 Thursday, 10 September 2026