38-wp9635-2023.doc AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9635 OF 2023 Sachin Shripad Vaidya & Ors. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents Mr. Deepak Pandey for the petitioners. Mr. P.V. Nelson Rajan, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3- State. Mr. Chaitanya Jadhav with Mr. Shashank Dubey i/by SC Legal for respondent No.4. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : DECEMBER 4, 2025 P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioners are members of the managing committee of a housing society. Thirteen members of the society submitted a requisition on 2 June 2020 to the Secretary and the Chairman. They required the committee to convene a special general body meeting under Section 76 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The requisition sought two issues to be placed before the general body. First, to consider filing independent proceedings against GHP Corporation for securing office premises for the society in terms of the redevelopment agreement of 2006. Second, to consider challenging the communication issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai regarding property tax. 1 ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Digitally signed by ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2025.12.04 18:12:03 +0530 38-wp9635-2023.doc 3. The petitioners state that the Covid pandemic prevailed from January 2020 to March 2021. They submit that restrictions were in force during this period. They contend that, due to these circumstances, the special general body meeting could not be convened. 4. The Registrar passed an order dated 22 June 2023 disqualifying the entire managing committee. The disqualification was based on the failure of the Chairman and the Secretary to convene the requisitioned meeting. The managing committee members preferred a revision application before the revisional authority. The revisional authority dismissed the application by the impugned order. The petitioners have therefore approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 5. The reply placed on record by the petitioners shows that the present managing committee assumed office on 12 February 2023 for the term 2023 to 2028. The petitioners state that the requisition relied upon by the complainant did not reflect the true intent of several signatories. They point out that eight out of the thirteen persons who had signed the requisition have stated in writing that they did not intend to seek convening of a special general body meeting. They assert that their signatures were taken for a different purpose and were later used by the complainant as a requisition under Section 76 of the Act. In view of this dispute regarding the very foundation of the requisition, the managing committee requested the Registrar to recall the show cause notice. 2 38-wp9635-2023.doc 6. Section 76(2) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act confers power upon the Registrar to disqualify members of the managing committee for failure to convene a special general body meeting. The power is significant and affects the representative character of a democratically elected body. The statute therefore obliges the Registrar to examine whether the committee was prevented by reasonable cause from convening the meeting. This duty is mandatory. The material before the Court shows that the requisition was issued in June 2020. That period fell squarely within the phase when Covid restrictions were in force across the State. Executive orders regulating movement and public gatherings were in effect. These circumstances are matters of which the Court can take judicial notice. The restrictions began to ease only after March 2021. In such a situation, convening a special general body meeting was not feasible in the ordinary manner prescribed under the Act and the Rules. The failure of the committee to convene the meeting during this period therefore stands supported by reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 76(2). The Registrar ought to have considered this overriding circumstance before exercising the power of disqualification. The supersession of an elected committee without accounting for such a compelling factual situation cannot be sustained. 7. In view of the above discussion, the orders passed by the authorities below suffer from a clear error of approach. They fail to consider the statutory requirement of reasonable cause. They also overlook the extraordinary situation prevailing during the relevant period. The impugned orders therefore cannot stand in the eye of 3 38-wp9635-2023.doc law. 8. Hence, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (c-1) 9. No costs. (AMIT BORKAR, J.) 4