9-wp.11340.2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11340 OF 2026 Julie Mudras and Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents Ms. Pushpa V. Ganediwala with Mr. Bhushan Shinde, Ms. Anshu Agrawal, Mr. Pradyumna Agrawal and Ms. Trusha C. i/b/ Pushpa Ganediwala and Company for the Petitioners. Mr. Y. D. Patil, A.G.P. with Mr. S.H. Kankal, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 1st SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. : 1. The nine members of respondent No.4-Society have approached this Court praying for an issuance of mandamus directing the Deputy District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, ‘H’/West Ward to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and to take up, hear and decide the representations and objections submitted by the petitioners concerning the re-development process, as regards the respondent No.4. N. S. Chitnis 1/3 NISHA SANDEEP CHITNIS Digitally signed by NISHA SANDEEP CHITNIS Date: 2026.09.05 12:49:32 +0530 9-wp.11340.2026.doc 2. Having heard the learned counsel Ms. Ganediwala appearing for the petitioners and the learned A.G.P. for the State, we have noted that the objections raised by the petitioners pertain to the alleged non-disclosure of information by the Society. However, we find that the Minutes of the General Body Meeting reveal that a decision was taken by majority to appoint a Developer. Out of 18 members, 15 members agreed to the appointment of a particular Developer, and it is also informed that an Agreement has been informed to be signed. The learned A.G.P. has placed reliance upon the Circular dated 4th November 2025 issued by the Commissioner for Co- operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pune, as regards the limited role to be exercised under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act, 1960, which confers power upon the Government to issue directions in the public interest. As far as redevelopment projects are concerned, the said Circular clarifies that the Registrar has no role to play in the decision taken by the Society N. S. Chitnis 2/3 9-wp.11340.2026.doc for appointment of a Developer and that he should not entertain any application seeking review of the decision taken in the General Body Meeting, the General Body being the final authority in that regard. 3. In the wake of the aforesaid, since we are of the view that the petition cannot be entertained in the form in which it is prayed that the Registrar shall entertain the grievance of the petitioners and ensure transparency in the re-development process, Ms.Ganediwala seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to seek such appropriate remedy as is available to the members in law. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed. ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J. N. S. Chitnis 3/3