1 of 3 906-wp-12332-22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12332 OF 2022 M. D. Goregaonkar & Anr. ..Petitioners Versus Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-op. Societies, Mumbai Division & Ors. ..Respondents __________ Mr. Sandeep R. Waghmare for Petitioners. Dr. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP for State/ Respondent Nos.1 & 2. __________ CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATE : 14 NOVEMBER 2025 PC : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court to assail the orders passed under Section 76(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The record shows that the State Co- operative Election Authority directed the managing committee on 25 February 2019 to submit a proposal for conducting elections. The committee did not act within time. The Deputy Registrar thereafter issued a communication on 13 March 2019 calling upon the committee to take steps for constituting the election committee within the prescribed period. The authorities treated this omission as a breach falling within Section 76(2). The petitioners contend Gokhale VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Digitally signed by VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date: 2025.11.14 15:06:52 +0530 2 of 3 906-wp-12332-22 that the directions pertained to initiating the election process. They submit that such lapse does not attract Section 76(2) and that the authorities travelled beyond the scope of the provision. The question, therefore, is whether the omission complained of answers to the statutory conditions of Section 76(2). 3. The framework of the Act provides distinct mechanisms for distinct situations. If the term of the committee has expired or the committee cannot function for want of quorum, the statute places a responsibility on the Registrar to invoke Section 77A. That provision enables the Registrar to intervene and ensure continuity in the administration of the society. Section 76(2) stands on a different footing. It empowers the Registrar to act when the committee fails to convene a special general body meeting without reasonable cause. The power is specific. It does not operate as a general disciplinary power. The omission to submit the election proposal or to constitute the election committee does not fall within the fold of Section 76(2). The authority could not enlarge the scope of the provision. The law does not permit such expansion by implication. The Registrar is expected to act within the four corners of the statute. When the statute prescribes a specific remedy for a specific situation, the authority cannot resort to another provision to impose a penalty. 4. On a careful reading of the provisions and the impugned orders, I find that the authorities acted without jurisdiction. The 3 of 3 906-wp-12332-22 action rests on an assumption that every lapse of the managing committee can be brought within Section 76(2). Such a view is inconsistent with the statutory scheme. The power under Section 76(2) requires a clear finding that the committee refused to convene a special general body meeting without sufficient cause. No such foundation exists here. The omission relied upon relates to initiation of the election process. For that situation, the Act provides the remedy under Section 77A. The authorities failed to adopt the course mandated by law. The consequence cannot be visited upon the petitioners. I hold that the orders passed under Section 76(2) suffer from a jurisdictional error. They cannot stand. 5. The Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 6. The petition is disposed of. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)