Renuka 21-WP-9642-2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9642 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7058 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 9642 OF 2026 Abdul Latif Hussain Ali Shaikh and Anr ...Petitioners V/s. State Of Maharashtra (Through Trombay Police Station ) and Ors ...Respondents ________________ Mr. M. G. Rajbhar, a/w Ms. Anita Rajbhar, Ms. Sonali Karush for Petitioners. Mr. Ashok Pote for Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 9. Ms. S. D. Chipade, AGP for Respondent-State. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 7 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1) The Petition challenges the Minutes of Special Meeting held on 9 December 2025 convened for the purpose of adopting a Motion of No Confidence against the Petitioners. In the meeting held on 9 December 2025, 7 out of the 8 members of the managing committee were present and out of those 7 members present and voting, 5 members voted in favour of the Motion of No Confidence. Accordingly, Petitioners, Page No. 1 of 5 7 SEPTEMBER 2026 2026:BHC-AS:37005 Renuka 21-WP-9642-2026.docx who were Chairman and Secretary of the society, are removed from their respective positions by virtue of the motion adopted in the meeting held on 9 December 2025. Accordingly, certificate dated 4 March 2026 is issued by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, SRA, which is also under challenge in the present Petition. Petitioners have also challenged the consequential orders and actions. 2) I have heard Mr. Rajbhar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. Pote, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 9 and Ms. Chipade, the learned AGP appearing for Respondent-State. 3) On 30 July 2026, this Court had made following observations in paragraph 4 of the order:- 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that in the Special Meeting held on 9 December 2025, two persons were allowed to participate and vote in the meeting viz. Mr. Shaikh Muklesh Maulana Mustafa and Smt. Shaikh Rosina Muklesh. According to him, Mr. Shaikh Muklesh Maulana Mustafa has already sold his tenement and is illegally functioning on the Managing Committee without having any interest in the property of the Society. So far as Smt. Shaikh Rosina Muklesh is concerned, it is submitted that her name does not appear in Annexure-II but she has encroached upon one of the tenements in the building. He therefore submits that right of these two persons to participate in the Special Meeting and vote in favour of Motion of No Confidence is seriously under dispute. It is submitted that if votes of these two persons are ignored, the requisite 2/3rd majority within the meaning of Section 154B-24(1) read with Section Page No. 2 of 5 7 SEPTEMBER 2026 Renuka 21-WP-9642-2026.docx 73-1D of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (the MCS Act) is not fulfilled. 4) Today this Court enquired with the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 9 as to whether Respondent Nos. 7 has indeed sold the tenement (Flat No. 503). He invites my attention to the affidavit in reply. From contents of paragraph Nos. 29 and 30 of the affidavit-in-reply, it does appear that a transaction of sale was executed on 26 September 2017 by Respondent No. 7 with Mr. Kalachand Shabdar Ali in respect of flat No. 503. The learned counsel however submits that the transaction is incomplete. He however fairly submits that Mr. Kalachand Shabdar Ali is in possession of flat No. 503. Thus, Respondent No. 7 has entered into sale transaction of the tenant, has handed over its possession and does not even reside in the building but has functioned as managing committee member and voted in support of Motion of No Confidence. So far as Respondent No. 9 is concerned, in paragraph No. 31 of the affidavit-in-reply, the allegation of absence of eligibility in Annexure II is sought to be dealt with. However there is no positive statement that the name of the Respondent No. 9 figures in Annexure II. Prima facie, it appears that the allotment made in favour of Respondent No. 9 has been cancelled and the matter is sub judice. Again, participation in the affairs of the society by Respondent No. 9 whose right to hold tenement itself is under question and her participation in the decision making process for adopting Motion for No Confidence for removal of Petitioners does not appear to be in order. Page No. 3 of 5 7 SEPTEMBER 2026 Renuka 21-WP-9642-2026.docx 5) Even qua Respondent No. 6, there appears to be serious doubt on her ability to participate in the meeting and vote in favour of Motion of No Confidence. 6) Since adoption of Motion of No Confidence results in serious civil consequences and office bearers of the society can be removed by mere 2/3rd majority without assigning reason, there needs to be strict compliance with provisions of the Act. Once it is found that the members voting in favour of motion suffer from any disability, the Motion of No Confidence will be rendered illegal. In the present case, this Court is of the view that Respondent Nos. 7 and 9 do suffer from some disability to function as managing committee members and particularly to vote in favour of the Motion of No Confidence. It looks quite strange that persons who have either sold their tenement or whose allotment of tenement is cancelled have participated in Special Meeting for adoption of Motion of No Confidence against the chairman and secretary of the society. Ordinarily, while deciding the issue of validity of Motion of No Confidence, this Court would not go into the issue of validity of election of members of managing committee or their eligibility to function as such. However, since adoption of Motion of No Confidence involves serious consequences, it is imperative that persons who suffer from some disability do not take part in the meeting for adoption of Motion of No Confidence. Here person unconnected with the affairs of the building have decided the fate of the office bearers of the society. 7) Considering the peculiar facts of the present case, in my view, the Motion of No Confidence adopted in the meeting held on 9 Page No. 4 of 5 7 SEPTEMBER 2026 Renuka 21-WP-9642-2026.docx December 2025 appears to be clearly erroneous and deserves to be set aside. 8) The Petition accordingly succeeds. The Motion of No Confidence shown to have been adopted in the meeting dated 9 December 2025 as well as the certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar dated 4 March 2026 are set aside. Consequently, the election of new Chairman and Secretary in respect of society are also set aside. Order dated 24 June 2026 for taking over records of the society from Petitioners is also set aside. 9) Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 5 of 5 7 SEPTEMBER 2026 Signed by: Renuka S Thakur Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 09/09/2026 10:52:09