9-wp5489-2021 with ia3952-2021.doc AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5489 OF 2021 Padmachhaya Cooperative Housing Society No.2 Limited & Ors. … Petitioners V/s. Hon’ble Minister, Cooperation and Marketing & Ors. … Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3952 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5489 OF 2021 Santosh B. Pandit & Ors. … Applicants In the matter between Padmachhaya Cooperative Housing Society No.2 Limited & Ors. … Petitioners V/s. Hon’ble Minister, Cooperation and Marketing & Ors. … Respondents Mr. Shailendra S. Kanetkar with Mr. Shubham Suryawanshi for the petitioners. Mr. Shrivallabh S. Panchpor for the intervener/ applicant in IA. Mr. Vishal Tiwari i/by Mr. Chaitnaya Nikte for respondent No.6. Mr. Prajit Sahabe with Ms. Sneha Bhange for respondent Nos.7 and 8. Smt. M.S. Bane, AGP for the State. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 19, 2025 1 ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Digitally signed by ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2025.11.20 18:56:35 +0530 9-wp5489-2021 with ia3952-2021.doc P.C.: 1. The petitioner housing society and its members question the order of the revisional authority directing that the bifurcation proceedings be sent back to respondent No.3 for reconsideration on merits. They submit that this direction is contrary to the earlier order of this Court dated 25 July 2018 in Writ Petition No.10144 of 2014. By that order, this Court had already directed respondent No.3 to carry out the bifurcation. 2. The material facts are as follows. On 29 April 2010 respondent No.4 passed the final order bifurcating respondent No.6 and petitioner No.1 into two separate societies. Respondent No.6 challenged the order. The proceedings travelled up to this Court in Writ Petition No.11571 of 2013. This Court allowed that petition and remitted the matter to the Minister. The Minister by order dated 28 August 2014 allowed the revision and set aside the bifurcation order. That order was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.10144 of 2014. This Court directed respondent No.3 to bifurcate respondent No.6 into two societies and directed him to issue the bifurcation order. 3. Respondent No.3 thereafter passed the bifurcation order on 18 April 2019. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 challenged that order by filing an appeal. On 16 September 2019 respondent No.2 dismissed their appeal. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 then filed Revision Application No.591 of 2019. 4. During the pendency of the revision, respondent No.3 passed an order under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies 2 9-wp5489-2021 with ia3952-2021.doc Act 1960 granting registration to petitioner No.1 as a separate society and classifying it as a Tenant Ownership Society. On 28 July 2021 respondent No.1 heard both sides, allowed the revision, and remanded the proceedings to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration. The petitioner has therefore approached this Court. 5. Mr. Kanetkar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that respondent Nos.7 and 8 had signed the proposal submitted to respondent No.3 after this Court’s order in Writ Petition No.10144 of 2014. He submitted that they cannot now dispute the bifurcation order. He submitted that the revisional authority has not given any cogent reason to show how the bifurcation affects the rights of respondent Nos.7 and 8. The observation that the rights of the original society may be affected is vague. There is no explanation how the rights of respondent No.6 come in the way of the proposal, especially when this Court’s direction to bifurcate the society has attained finality. He submitted that the remand order lacks justification. He further submitted that petitioner No.1 has already been registered during the pendency of the revision and is functioning independently. In this background, the order of remand is unsustainable. 6. Learned Advocate for respondent Nos.7 and 8 supported the order of the revisional authority. He submitted that the reasons given in the order are sufficient to justify the remand. 7. Mr. Panchpor, learned Advocate for the intervener, submitted that the registration of petitioner No.1 as Padmachhaya CHS No.2 is not legally permissible. He pointed out that this Court had 3 9-wp5489-2021 with ia3952-2021.doc permitted the interveners to participate in the bifurcation proceedings. He fairly stated that the interveners were not parties to the revision application. 8. Having examined the impugned order, I find that the direction of remand cannot stand. The revisional authority has not shown any clear or concrete reason to establish that the rights of respondent No.6 society suffer any prejudice because of the bifurcation. The record does not reveal any material placed by respondent No.6 to demonstrate such prejudice. 9. This Court had already issued a specific direction in Writ Petition No.10144 of 2014 requiring respondent No.3 to carry out the bifurcation. That direction had reached finality. Once such a direction was issued, the fact of bifurcation could not again be reopened in a revision. The revisional authority could examine only the terms or conditions attached to the bifurcation order. It could not reconsider the very decision to bifurcate. 10. The impugned order is silent on a basic and essential aspect. It does not identify any particular condition in the bifurcation order that infringes the rights of respondent No.6. It also does not clarify how such rights are affected. When a statutory authority seeks to unsettle an order that has attained finality, the law expects clear findings supported by material on record. The revisional authority has not referred to any document, any objection, or any factual circumstance which would show that the parent society stands deprived of any lawful entitlement because of the bifurcation. 4 9-wp5489-2021 with ia3952-2021.doc 11. Such absence of reasoning strikes at the root of the decision making process. A direction of remand cannot rest on conjecture or on general observations. The authority must demonstrate what factual error or legal infirmity renders the original order vulnerable. The impugned order does not meet this standard. It proceeds on an assumption that the rights of the original society may be affected. Assumptions cannot take the place of proof. The record before the authority did not contain any substantive material supporting such apprehension. 12. Once this Court had directed the competent authority to bifurcate the society, that direction had to be complied with in its true spirit. The revisional authority could examine only the terms of implementation. It could not reopen the very foundation of the bifurcation. By directing a remand without identifying any justifying circumstance, the revisional authority has travelled beyond the permissible limits of its jurisdiction. 13. Mr. Panchpor, learned Advocate for the intervener, urged that the registration of petitioner No.1 as Padmachhaya CHS No.2 is not permissible in law. He relied on the fact that this Court had earlier allowed the interveners to participate in the bifurcation proceedings. His submission, however, must be examined in the correct legal setting. It appears that the interveners were not parties to the revision application. Once they were not parties to that proceeding, any grievance regarding the registration could not be advanced in the present writ petition unless supported by material demonstrating a direct and immediate prejudice to their rights. 5 9-wp5489-2021 with ia3952-2021.doc 14. Participation in the bifurcation proceedings by itself does not confer a right to challenge every subsequent step unless the statute recognises such a right or unless the person is affected in a manner recognised by law. The intervener has not produced any evidence to show that the registration of petitioner No.1 as a separate society has caused or is likely to cause any injury to their legal interests. In absence of such material, the objection raised remains in the realm of a bald assertion. 15. The Court must adjudicate on the basis of established facts and clear statutory rights. Since the interveners were not before the revisional authority, and since no credible evidence has been shown to this Court demonstrating any prejudice to them, their objection to the registration cannot be entertained in the present proceeding. 16. For these reasons, I am of the view that the revisional authority exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the bifurcation order and directing a fresh consideration. The order of remand is therefore unsustainable. 17. Hence, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). No costs. 18. All pending interim applications stand disposed of as infructuous. (AMIT BORKAR, J.) 6