10.09.2026 Sl. No. 10 (DL) Ct.No.19 (Susanta) (Bench I.D. 266052) WPA 21628 of 2024 Miaxi P Sakaria Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Trivedi, Mr. Sanket Sarawgi, Mr. R. Sarkar, Mr. Niket Ojha, …for the petitioner. Mr. Pratip Kumar Chatterjee, Ld. Sr, Adv., Mr. Mihir Kundu, …for the Respondent nos. 3 & 4. 1. The writ petitioner and the respondent nos. 4 & 5 are represented by their respective learned advocates. 2. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 & 5 raises the point of maintainability of the instant writ petition. 3. Attention of this Court is drawn to Section 102 of the West Bengal Co-Operative Societies Act, 2006 (Act in short). 4. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 & 5 that it is the legislative mandate that any dispute concerning the management or business or affairs of a co-operative society other than the dispute relating to the election in a co-operative society shall have to be filed before the Registrar for settlement. 2 5. Drawing attention to Sub-Section (2) of Section 102 of the said Act it is further submitted that it is the further legislative mandate that any dispute as mentioned in Section 102 (1) of the said Act other than the dispute relating to recovery of money shall have to be filed before the Registrar within three months from the date on which the causes of action arises. 6. At this juncture, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 & 5 at the very outset draws the attention of this Court to paragraph no. 14 and paragraph no. 22 of the instant writ petition. 7. It is argued that from the pleadings of the instant writ petition especially from those two paragraphs it would reveal that it is the grievance of the writ petitioner that the respondent nos. 4 & 5 have demanded Rs. 3,62,766/- towards principal sum as outstanding maintenance and also towards interest. 8. It is however, submitted on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 & 5 that in paragraph 22 of the instant writ petition it has been specifically averred by the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 3,83,695/- as claimed by the respondent nos. 4 & 5 who were the Secretary and Treasurer of the co-operative housing society. Drawing attention to the prayer of the writ petitioner it is submitted by the learned advocate for the respondent nos. 4 & 5 that the writ petitioner has prayed for appropriate 3 relief from this Court commanding the respondent nos. 4 & 5 to refund the sum of Rs. 2,89,994/- 9. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 & 5 that from the pleadings of the instant writ petition it reveals that a dispute cropped up between the writ petitioner and the respondent nos. 4 & 5 regarding the demand made by the respondent nos. 4 & 5 on account of non-payment of maintenance charge by the writ petitioner and the penal interest as charged by the respondent nos. 4 & 5 in discharging of their management or business or affairs of the co- operative society and thus, the said dispute pertains to Section 102 of the said Act which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court and the said dispute as per legislative mandate is to be resolved before the Registrar of Co-operative Society. It is thus, submitted that the instant writ petition is not at all maintainable. 10. Per contra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner contended that on careful perusal of the pleadings of the instant writ petition including the prayers made therein it would reveal that it is the grievance of the writ petitioner that the respondent nos. 4 & 5 in violation of the existing Rules have demanded exorbitant amount towards maintenance and penal interest which is de-hors to bye-laws of co-operative housing authority. 11. It is thus submitted that the dispute as involved in the instant writ petition is not concerned 4 about the management or business or affairs of a co-operative society and, therefore, the point of maintainability of the instant writ petition as raised on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 & 5 has got no leg to stand upon. 12. This Court has meticulously perused the entire materials as placed before this Court. This Court has given its due consideration over the submissions of the learned advocate for the contending parties. 13. For effective adjudication of the point of maintainability as raised on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 & 5, this Court, at the very outset, proposes to look to the provision of Section 102 of the said Act which reads as under:- “102. Disputes to be filed before Registrar.- (1) any dispute concerning the management or business or affairs of a co-operative society other than the dispute relating to election in a co-operative society as and when such election is conducted by the Co- operative Election Commission and disciplinary action taken by co-operative society against its paid employees regarding the terms and conditions of the service shall be filed before the Registrar for settlement if it arises – (a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members and deceased members or then sureties; or 5 (b) between member, past member or a person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member representing through heirs or legal representatives and the co- operative society, its board or any officer, agent or employees of the co-operative society or liquidator, past or present; or (c ) between the co-operative society or its board and any past board, any officer, agent or employee or any past officer, past agent; or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer or deceased employee of the co-operative society; or (d) between two co-operative societies or between a co-operative society and a liquidator of another co-operative or between liquidator of two different co- operatives or between a co-operative society and any person having transaction with it or between a co-operative society and its financing bank. 2. Any dispute mentioned in sub-section (1) other than a dispute relating to recovery of money shall be filed before the Registrar within three months from the date on which the cause of action arises. 3…… 4…… 5…… ” 6 14. Keeping in mind the aforementioned legislative provision if I look to the pleadings of the instant writ petition, more specifically, in paragraph nos. 14 and 22 thereof it appears that it is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent nos. 4 & 5 being the Secretary and Treasurer of the concerned housing co-operative society has demanded a sum or Rs. 3.62,766/- towards principal sum being alleged outstanding towards maintenance together with interest as accrued on such alleged outstanding maintenance. 15. From paragraph 22 of the instant writ petition it reveals that it is the specific case of the writ petitioner that she was compelled to make payment of Rs.3,83,695/- through cheque being the alleged dues upto 30th June, 2022 towards the alleged principal sum for maintenance and accrued interest which has been encashed by the said housing society. 16. It further appears that it is also the case of the writ petitioner that the respondent nos. 4 & 5 authorities have no right to claim the aforementioned amount towards alleged dues for non-payment of maintenance charge and interest. 17. In course of his submission learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner was very vocal regarding the dispute as raised by the writ petitioner in this writ petition. It was strongly contended that the dispute pertains to the instant 7 writ petition is simple a dispute for recovery of money from the respondent nos. 4 & 5 since their demand was de-hors to the bye-laws of the concerned housing co-operative society and it has got no connection concerning the management or business or affairs of the said co-operative society and, therefore, embargo of Section 102(1) has got no manner of application. 18. With deepest respect to the learned advocate for the writ petitioner, the argument advanced by him in considered view of this Court is not at all tenable. In the event, Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section (2) of Section 102 of the said Act are read harmoniously, it reveals that a dispute between members of co-operative society or between the member and co-operative society including a dispute regarding recovery of money come under the purview of sub-Section (1) as otherwise the purport of Sub- section (2) of Section 102 of the said Act would be redundant. 19. Coming to the factual aspects of this case it appears to this Court that the claim as made by the respondent nos. 4 & 5 from the writ petitioner towards alleged non-payment of maintenance and the accrued interest towards the principal sum is in relation to management or business or affairs of the co-operative society since the Secretary and the Treasurer of housing co-operative society is under obligation to manage the affairs of a co-operative 8 society by utilizing the maintenance charges to be paid by its members. 20. In view of such, this Court finds sufficient merit in the submission of the learned advocate for the respondent nos. 4 & 5. The subject matter of the instant writ petition falls within the domain of Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 21. In view of the discussion made hereinabove this Court holds that the instant writ petition is not maintainable and on such score WPA21628 of 2024 is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 22. Interim order, if there be, stands vacated. 23. The pending interlocutory application, if there be, stands hereby disposed of. 24. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (Partha Sarathi Sen , J.)