k 1/4 5 wp 8046.26 as.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8046 OF 2026 Shivaji Mahadev Shingote & Anr. ....Petitioners V/S The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents _________ Mr. G.N. Salunke i/b Mr. Amol Laxman Dhumal for the Petitioners. Mr. Vishal Kanade i/b Mr. Rupesh R. Lanjekar for Respondent No.5. Mr. Y.D. Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4/State. __________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 23 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1. The Petition challenges order dated 1 December 2023 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar in exercise of powers under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act) allowing Revision Application No.172 of 2023 filed by Respondent No.5-Society and setting aside the test audit report and special report dated 28 August 2023 and remanding the proceedings for submission of a fresh test audit report. 2. I have heard Mr. Salunke, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner, Mr. Kanade, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5-Society and Mr. Patil, the learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 4/State. 3. In Sayajirao Narayan Takwane vs. Divisional Joint Registrar & Ors.1 this Court has held that findings recorded or conclusions reached 1 Writ Petition No. 544 of 2025, decided on 4 February 2025 katkam Page No. 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AS:39075 k 2/4 5 wp 8046.26 as.doc by an auditor in normal audit, test audit or re-audit as well as in a specific report or under a special report do not constitute ‘decisions’ and cannot be challenged before any Court or authority. This Court has held in paragraph 47 of the judgment as under: “47) The principles that emerge from the above discussion, based on the precedents noted above, are as under: (i) Findings recorded and conclusions reached by the auditor in normal audit, test audit, re-audit as well as in specific report under first proviso to Section 81(5B) and special report under third proviso to Section 81(5B) do not constitute 'decisions' and cannot be challenged before a Court or authority. (ii) Report submitted by the Registrar under the provisions of Section 83 of the Act is not a decision capable of being challenged before any Court or authority. (iii) An order passed by a Registrar under Section 81(3)(c) of the Act directing conduct of test audit is an administrative order, which cannot be challenged in revision under Section 154 of the Act. (iv) An order directing conduct of re-audit under Section 81(6) of the Act is an administrative order, against which revision cannot be filed under Section 154 of the Act.” 4. Therefore, revision against findings recorded in a test audit report and special report was clearly not maintainable. 5. Mr. Kanade attempts to salvage the situation by inviting attention of the Court to order dated 13 September 2023 passed by the Assistant Registrar after receipt of the test audit report and special report deciding to conduct inquiry under Section 88 of the MCS Act and appointing the Enquiry Officer. He submits that in the revision preferred by Respondent No.5, even order passed under Section 88 on 13 September 2023 was under challenge. In my view, a revision may not lie merely against an order passed by the Registrar deciding to conduct inquiry under Section 88 of the MCS Act and appointing an Enquiry Officer. Even though the katkam Page No. 2 of 4 k 3/4 5 wp 8046.26 as.doc Registrar needs to apply his mind to the findings recorded in test audit report and special report before taking a decision for appointment of an Enquiry Officer under Section 88 of the MCS Act, the Registrar does not exercise adjudicatory power and merely exercises administrative powers while deciding to conduct inquiry and while appointing the Enquiry Officer. Though action of the Registrar in deciding to conduct inquiry and appointing an Enquiry Officer under Section 88 of the MCS Act may constitute a 'decision' the same still cannot be revised since such decision is not taken in exercise of adjudicatory powers. The Registrar does not hear parties before making a decision for conduct of inquiry or appointment of an Enquiry Officer. He merely takes an administrative decision after perusal of records for the purpose of appointment of an Enquiry Officer. Such decision may be challengeable in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, since adjudication is not made, a revision against such decision would not lie. Therefore, revision was not maintainable even against order dated 13 September 2023. 6. There is thus a serious jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 1 December 2023 as the Divisional Joint Registrar has erroneously exercised revisionary powers under Section 154 of the MCS Act when no revision could lie merely against a test audit report, a special report or even against order appointing an Enquiry Officer under Section 88 of the MCS Act. 7. The Petition accordingly succeeds. The order dated 1 December 2023 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar is set aside. Petitioner, katkam Page No. 3 of 4 k 4/4 5 wp 8046.26 as.doc however, would be at liberty to challenge order dated 13 September 2023 passed under Section 88 of the MCS Act before the appropriate forum. All contentions of parties on merits are expressly kept open. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) katkam Page No. 4 of 4 Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 24/09/2026 15:22:27