Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4744 (BOM)

KASTURCHAND RAMINA AND ANR v. THE DIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO OP AND ORS

WP/8317/2026 · 2026-08-27

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Renuka 6-WP-8317-2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8317 OF 2026 Kasturchand Ramina and Anr ...Petitioners V/s. The Divisional Joint Registrar of Co Op and Ors ...Respondents ________________ Mr. Abhijeet A. Joshi for Petitioner. Mr. A. C. Bhadang, AGP for Respondent-State. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 27 AUGUST 2026. P.C.: 1) The Petition challenges orders dated 30 March 2026 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai(Divisional Joint Registrar) dismissing Revision Application No. 86 of 2018 and Appeal No. 10 of 2018 preferred by the Petitioners. In Appeal No. 10 of 2018, Petitioners have challenged report of the Inquiry Officer dated 22 December 2017 under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act). 2) In Revision Application 86 of 2018, Petitioners had challenged the Recovery Certificate dated 10 May 2018 issued by the Deputy Registrar, Thane (Deputy Registrar). Page No. 1 of 3 27 August 2026 2026:BHC-AS:35244 Renuka 6-WP-8317-2026.docx 3) I have heard Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. Bhadang, the learned AGP appearing for the Respondent-State and have considered the submissions canvassed by them. 4) Perusal of the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 22 December 2017 would indicate that an inquiry was conducted under Section 83 of the MCS Act in which various discrepancies were noticed in the matter of carrying out repair works in the building of the society. Therefore inquiry is also conducted by Inquiry Officer under Section 88 of the MCS Act. It appears that an amount of Rs. 45,42,692/- was spent for carrying out the repairs. The Inquiry Officer found that the repairs were not carried out by the then managing committee after following the prescribed procedure. There was no estimate for carrying out the work. Quotations were not invited. Though four tenders were received, some of the tenders were blank. Though it was mandatory to take permission of general body for incurring of expenditure in excess of the Rs. 1 lakh, the same was not sought. The amount of TDS was not deposited with the Government. Some of the payments were found to have been made through bearer cheques. Cheque No. 342979 dated 13 September 2014 for Rs. 1,75,000/- was issued without even writing name of the payee. These specific findings are recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the report. 5) More importantly, the Inquiry Officer appointed a valuer for evaluating the value of the work and who opined vide report dated 28 November 2017 that the work worth Rs. 30,28,240/- was actually carried out by the managing committee. However, expenditure of 45,42,692/- Page No. 2 of 3 27 August 2026 Renuka 6-WP-8317-2026.docx was shown to have been incurred. This is how an Inquiry Officer arrived at a finding that there was a misappropriation/financial loss to the tune of Rs. 15,14,452/- to the society. 6) In the revision preferred before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Petitioners did not question the contents of the valuation report. The methodology of preparation of valuation was not challenged. Beyond saying that the valuation was not acceptable, Petitioners did not pinpoint any errors in the valuation report. Before the Revisional Authority only six grounds were raised none of which dealt with various findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer as discussed above. 7) It is now sought to be suggested that since police high highhandedly confiscated the records of the society, Petitioners did not have access to the records for defending themselves in respect of the allegations. However, perusal of the Revision Application would indicate that no complaint to that effect was raised before the Divisional Joint Registrar. 8) Considering, the above position, in my view, there is no warrant for interference in the impugned orders passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. 9) Writ petition is accordingly rejected. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 3 of 3 27 August 2026 Signed by: Renuka S Thakur Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 28/08/2026 10:58:11