Megha 902_wpst_27589_2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.27589 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7480 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.27589 OF 2026 Wadala Heights Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents ________________ Mr. Aameer V. Kale with Ms. Alisha A. Patel i/b. M/s. A.K. Legal & Associates for the Petitioners. Mr. Amod Eklaspur for Respondent Nos.5 and 6. Mr. Y.D. Patil, AGP for Respondent-State. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 23 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1) The Petitioner-Society is aggrieved by order dated 17 November 2025 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, F-N Ward, Mumbai (Assistant Registrar) accepting report of the Enquiry Officer under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) and directing the enquiry by appointment of Enquiry Officer under Section 88 of the MCS Act. Page No. 1 of 4 23 September 2026 2026:BHC-AS:39116 Megha 902_wpst_27589_2026 2) It appears that the Petitioner- Society had filed a revision against order dated 17 November 2025, which is held to be not maintainable. In the meantime, the Enquiry Officer appointed vide order dated 17 November 2025 has issued a notice to the Petitioners on 1 September 2026 under Rule 72(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. 3) I have heard Mr. Kale, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. Eklaspur, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.5 and 6 and Mr. Patil, the learned AGP appearing for the Respondent-State and have considered the submissions canvassed by them. 4) Ordinarily mere findings recorded in Section 83 inquiry do not constitute a decision capable of being challenged. However, in the unique facts of the case, it is seen that no real inquiry is conducted by the inquiry officer. It is on account of this peculiar fact, this Petition is being entertained. 5) It appears that the Society by itself had conducted a forensic audit of its accounts through M/s. B.P. Sanghani & Associates, Chartered Accountant. Forensic auditor submitted only a preliminary report. Additionally, the Society had also constituted an internal enquiry committee which had apparently held the Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer as well as Administrator responsible for discrepancies in the accounts. Additionally, the auditor appointed under Section 81 of the Page No. 2 of 4 23 September 2026 Megha 902_wpst_27589_2026 MCS Act, Mr. Dinesh Prabhu had apparently submitted a special report dated 13 January 2025. 6) The Assistant Registrar took note of special report dated 13 January 2025 in addition to complaint made by 41 members of the Society and proceeded to direct enquiry under Section 83 of the MCS Act by order dated 17 April 2025 by appointing an enquiry officer. The Enquiry Officer appointed vide order dated 17 April 2025 has conducted an enquiry under Section 83 of the MCS Act in a perfunctory manner. The Enquiry Officer took note of the interim forensic audit report and proceeded to exonerate manager of the Society- Ms. Sonali Mondhe. The Enquiry Officer thereafter took note of preliminary forensic audit report as well as report of the internal audit committee constituted by the Society and blindly accepted both the documents and proceeded to hold Society’s Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer responsible. Report of the Enquiry Officer dated 13 October 2025 does not indicate that he applied independent mind to the records before him. He has merely relied on preliminary forensic audit report and report of the internal committee for recording findings in his report. This is a reason why this Court has arrived at a conclusion that the enquiry conducted by Enquiry Officer under Section 83 of the MCS Act is perfunctory. The findings recorded in Section 83 enquiry becomes basis for apportionment of losses /damages against accused persons under Section 88 of the MCS Act. In that view of the matter it is necessary that enquiry under Section 83 of the MCS Act is conducted properly. In the present case, the Enquiry Officer has failed to conduct proper enquiry into the allegations and has blindly accepted the preliminary report of the forensic auditor and report of the internal Page No. 3 of 4 23 September 2026 Megha 902_wpst_27589_2026 committee. He himself ought to have examined accounts and records of the Society for the purpose of recording his findings. 7) In view of the above discussion, enquiry report dated 13 October 2025 conducted under Section 83 of the MCS Act deserves to be set aside and a fresh enquiry needs to be conducted. Since the Enquiry Officer has not properly conducted the enquiry, it is necessary that the Assistant Registrar appoints some other Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry under Section 83 of the MCS Act. 8) The Petition accordingly succeeds in part and I proceed to pass the following order:- (i) The enquiry report dated 13 October 2025 as well as order dated 17 November 2025 passed by the Assistant Registrar under Section 88 of the MCS Act are set aside. (ii) Assistant Registrar shall appoint another Enquiry Officer for conduct of enquiry under Section 83 of the MCS Act, who shall conduct the enquiry by going through the records and accounts of the society and submit a report. (iii) All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. 9) With the above directions, Writ Petition is partly allowed and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 10) Interim Application stands disposed of. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 4 of 4 23 September 2026 Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 24/09/2026 17:24:49