Renuka 5-WP-7414-2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7414 OF 2026 Kalpataru Jade Co operative Housing Society Federation Ltd ...Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra ...Respondent ________________ Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sachin K. Handle with Mr. Ponam Pal i/b Mr. Sachin Hande for Petitioner. Mr. Radhikesh V. Uttarwar with Ms. Pooja R. Thakur and Ms. Pradnya C. Solanki for Respondent. Mr. Ketan Joshi ‘B’ Panel with Ms S. D. Chipade, AGP for Respondent- State. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 25 AUGUST 2026. P.C.: 1) The challenge in the Petition is to the order dated 8 April 2026 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Pune Division, Pune (Divisional Joint Registrar) allowing Appeal No. 131 of 2025 and setting aside order dated 24 November 2025 passed by the Deputy Registrar. By order dated 24 November 2025, the Deputy Registrar has granted approval for deletion of Bye-law No. 4(I) (h) from the approved Bye-laws of the federation. The impugned order of the Divisional Joint Registrar results in restoration of Bye-law No. 4(I) (h). Page No. 1 of 6 25 August 2026 2026:BHC-AS:35243 Renuka 5-WP-7414-2026.docx 2) Bye-law No. 4(I) (h) ensures that water charges are levied on the basis of total number of inlets in each flat. 3) I have heard Mr. Shah, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Uttarwar, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent-State and have considered the submissions canvassed by them and also gone through the findings recorded in the orders passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar and the Deputy Registrar. 4) The Petitioner is a federation formed in respect of eight housing societies. The federations is formed on 28 August 2025. The first general body meeting of the federation was scheduled to be held on 18 September 2025. In that meeting, the federation was supposed to adopt the Bye-laws approved by the Registrar. It appears that in the meeting dated 18 October 2025, the federation adopted a resolution for deletion of Bye-law No. 4(I) (h) which reads thus:- h. Water Charges on the basis of the total number of inlets in each flat and Other Common Charges on the basis of each flat. 5) Thus, Bye-law No. 4(I) (h) ensures that water charges are levied in respect of total number of inlets in each flat. The other part of the Bye-law ensures that the other common charges are also levied on the basis of each flat. Bye-law No. 4(I) (h) appears to be pari materia with Bye-law 67 (II) of Model Bye-laws which also envisages levy of water charges on the basis of total number and size of inlets provided in each Page No. 2 of 6 25 August 2026 Renuka 5-WP-7414-2026.docx flat. The objectors (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) are office bearers and members of society formed by building E which comprises of 4 and half bedroom flats. The flats in the other buildings are comparatively smaller. Instead of levying the water charges on the basis of member of inlets in each flat, it appears that the federation wants to levy water charges per building. However, though Bye-law No. 4(I) (h) is deleted, the same is not substituted by the federation with any other Bye-law. Thus after deletion of Bye-law No. 4(I) (h), there is a vacuum, which is not filled up by any other specific byelaw. Even otherwise deletion of Bye-law No. 4(I) (h) appears to be contrary to the co-operative movement. In a co-operative housing society, members should be made to pay water charges on the basis of the water used/consumed. The water actually consumed is one of the parameters to levy water charges on the basis of number of inlets in each flat. 6) Mr. Shah, has contended that the remedy for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was to challenge the resolution adopted in General Body held on 18 October 2025 and in absence of challenge to the underlying resolution, it was impermissible for them to directly question the approval granted by the Registrar. I have unable to agree. The statutory scheme of Section 13 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (MCS Act)and Rule12 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules (MCS Rules), 1961 is such that after the general body adopts a resolution for amendment of the byelaws, the amendments need to be approved by the Registrar. Thus a Co-operative Society does not have an absolute direction and authority to amend the byelaws unilaterally and every amendment needs approval of the Registrar. In this situation, Page No. 3 of 6 25 August 2026 Renuka 5-WP-7414-2026.docx Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to oppose approval proceedings before the Deputy Registrar. If they can oppose grant of approval by the Deputy Registrar, they can also maintain a challenge against approval granted by the Deputy Registrar. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner federation that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 must challenge the resolution dated 18 October 2025 before the Co-operative Court cannot be accepted. If provisions of Rule 12 (5) of the MCS Rules are perused, it is seen that the Registrar needs to conduct inquiry as to whether the proposed amendment is contrary to the provisions of the Act or the Rules and whether it is against the interest of the society or against the co-operative movement. He can grant approval only after conduct of the inquiry as mandated under Rule 12 (5) of the MCS Rules, Rule 12 (5) of the MCS Rules provides thus:- Amendment of bye-laws:- (5) On receipt of a copy of the resolution and other particulars referred to in sub rule(4), the Registrar shall examine the amendment proposed by the society and if he is satisfied that the amendment is not contrary to the Act or the rules and is in the interest of the society and co-operative movement, he may register the amendment and issue to the society a copy of the amendment certified by him under sub-section (2) of Section 13. Where the Registrar is of opinion that the proposed amendment may be accepted subject to any modification, he may indicate to the society such modification after explaining in writing his reasons therefor. 7) In the present case, the Divisional Joint Registrar has recorded a finding that the deletion of Bye-law No. 4(I) (h) would clearly be against the interest of members of society formed by building E. The relevant finding recorded by the Divisional Joint Registrar in paragraph No. 7 of the order is as under:- Page No. 4 of 6 25 August 2026 Renuka 5-WP-7414-2026.docx ७. विकसकांनी सदर प्रकल्पामध्ये विल्डिंल्ग ए (सदविनका ८७), ी (सदविनका ८६), सी (सदविनका ८२), ी (सदविनका ४१), इ (सदविनका ४१), एफ (सदविनका ८०), जी (सदविनका ८६) एच (सदविनका ८७) विकसिसत के ल्या आहेत. स' आठ इमारतींच्या सामाईक सुविधांसाठी फे रेशनची स्थापना करण्यात आलेली आहे. उपविधी क्र ४ (1) (h) मध्ये पाणी पट्टी सदविनके तील इनलेटच्या संख्येनुसार आणिण इतर स' सामाईक खच' प्रत्येक सदविनके विनहाय आकारण्याची तरतूद आहे. तसेच गृहरचना संस्थांच्या आदश' उपविधी क्र ६६ मध्येही पाणी पट्टी ही इनलेटनुसार आकारण्याची तरतूद आहे. त्यामूळे सदर तरतूद ही सभासदांच्या विहताची न्यायकारक आहे, स सदर तरतूद गळल्यास अज'दार यांचेर अन्यायकारक ठरणार आहे. त्यामूळे सदरची तरतूद गळणे उचिचत योग्य होणार नाहीं ती कायम ठेणे आश्यक आहे. 8) Additionally, the Divisional Joint Registrar has also gone into the issue of the manner in which the General Body Meeting dated 18 October 2025 is conducted and decision for deletion of Bye-law No. 4(I) (h) is adopted. The relevant findings in paragraph Nos. 5 and 8 of the order read thus:- ५. प्रचितादी क्र २ फे रेशनच्या स'साधारण सभेच्या विद १९.०९.२०२५ रोजीच्या विषयपविIके मध्ये विषय नसताना विनंधकांनी मंजूर के लेले उपविधी स्विस्कृ त करणे अपेचिKत असताना प्रचितादी क्र २ फे रेशनने ेकायदेशीरपणे उपविधी क्र ४ (1) (Ch) गळण्याचा ठरा पारीत के ला असल्याचे प्रचितादी क्र १ यांचेके त्याात हरकत नोंदविलेली असताना देखील प्रचितादी क्र १ यांनी फे रेशनने दाखल के लेले उपविधी एकतफMरिरत्या, संंचिधतांना सुनाणीची संधी न देताच, कोणतीही कारणमीमांसा नमूद न करताच मंजूर के ले असल्याचे अज'दार यांनी नमूद के ले आहे. तसेच सभेचे अध्यK हे फे रेशनचे ा फे रेशनच्या सभासद असलेल्या संस्थेचे सभासद नसल्याने त्यांना अध्यK म्हणून कामकाज करता येणार नसल्याचे म्हणणे अज'दार यांनी सादर के ले आहे. ८. अज'दार हे फे रेशनच्या सभासद असणाऱ्या ई संस्थेचे पदाचिधकारी आहेत. अज'दार यांनी या काया'लयाके सभेतील ठरा रद्द करण्याची मागणी के लेली नसून, प्रचितादी क्र १ यांचे कलम १३ अन्येचे आदेश रद्द करण्याची मागणी के लेली आहे त्यार विनण'य घेण्याचा अचिधकार या काया'लयास आहे. विद १९.०९.२०२५ रोजीच्या सभा नोटीसीमध्ये विनंधकांनी मंजूर के लेले उपविधी स्विस्कृ त करणेचा विषय असताना, प्रचितादी क्र २ यांनी कोणतीही पू' सूचना न देताच उपविधी क्र ४ (1) (h) गळण्याचा ठरा के ल्याचे विदसून येत आहे. अज'दार यांनी दाखल के लेल्या कागदपIांरुन श्री विेक पार हे फे रेशनचे ा ी इमारतीचे सभासद असल्याचे विदसून येत नाही. प्रचितादी क्र १ यांनी उपविधी दुरुस्तीच्या प्रस्तााच्या अनुषंगाने प्राप्त झालेली हरकत विचारात न घेताच, संंचिधतांना नैसर्गिगक न्यायतत्ानुसार सुनाणीची संधी न देताच कोणतीही कारणमीमांसा नमूद न करतानाच विद २४.११.२०२५ रोजीचा आदेश पारिरत के ल्याचे विदसून येत आहे. Page No. 5 of 6 25 August 2026 Renuka 5-WP-7414-2026.docx 9) Considering the above position, in my view, the impugned order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar results in a situation where the spirit of co-operative movement is upheld and water charges are levied on the basis of total number of inlets provided in each flat. Even otherwise, mere deletion of Bye-law No. 4(I) (h) would create a vacuum and provide no guideline for levy of water charges and give handle to the federation to levy water charges arbitrarily. In my view, therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned order passed by the Divisional joint Registrar. 10) Writ Petition is devoid of merits, it is accordingly rejected. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 6 of 6 25 August 2026 Signed by: Renuka S Thakur Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 28/08/2026 10:57:16