Sonali Mane 28-WP-12238-2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12238 OF 2026 Dattakrupa Mahila Matsya Vyavsayik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit … Petitioner Versus The Assistant Registrar Co Op. Societies (Dairy) Pune And Ors. … Respondents Mr. Gaurav D. Kakade a/w Mr. Alpesh Vegad, Mr. Pradip Naik, Mr. Suraj Daundkar for Petitioner. Mr. A. C. Bhadang, AGP for Respondents-State. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 16 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C. : 1) The Petition challenges Order dated 1 September 2026 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Dairy) Pune, by which Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to be admitted as members of the Petitioner-Society. 2) There is an alternate remedy of filing a revision against the Order dated 1 September 2026. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Petition. ___Page No. 1 of 2 ___ 16 September 2026 MANE SONALI DILIP Digitally signed by MANE SONALI DILIP Date: 2026.09.18 10:49:07 +0530 Sonali Mane 28-WP-12238-2026.docx 3) This Court notices a disturbing factor in the present case. During the course of his submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner repeatedly alleged that the Officer who has passed impugned Order dated 1 September 2026 is a relative of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. However, it is an admitted position that this objection was not raised during the course of hearing conducted by Respondent No.1. 4) More importantly, the allegation is not pleaded in the Petition. Upon being queried by the Court as to how the allegation is being orally raised before this Court, the learned counsel submits that he has been specifically instructed by the president of the Petitioner- Society to orally raise the objection before this Court. This Court does not appreciate the conduct on behalf of the Petitioner in leveling wild and reckless allegations against Respondent No. 1 without even bothering to plead the same in the Petition. This Court was inclined to impose costs on the Petitioner while disposing of the Petition. However, the learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly requests the Court not to impose costs. 5) Accordingly, the Petition is disposed of, leaving open the remedy of filing a revision against Order dated 1 September 2026. All contentions on merits are expressly kept open. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] ___Page No. 2 of 2 ___ 16 September 2026