Beena Ajay Raghav And ANR v. State Of Maharashtra Thr The Ministry Of Coopertion And ANR

907-wp-168-2024.doc SA Pathan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.168 OF 2024 Beena Ajay Raghav & Anr ... Petitioner V/s.

State of Maharashtra Through The Ministry of Cooperation & Anr ... Respondents Mr. Vinit Naik, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar & Shadab Jain & Chirag Sarawagi i/by Mr. Viraj Bansod, for Petitioner.

Mrs. M. S. Srivastava, AGP, for State.

CORAM

: AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : JANUARY 10, 2024 P.C.:

1.

The learned AGP seeks time to file reply.

2.

Prima facie, it appears that the order of appointment of Administrator on the society registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 has been passed for non compliance of order and directions issued by the Assistant Registrar to enroll the persons as members of the society. Prima facie, it appears that respondent No.2, the authorized officer incorporated the names of the purchasers on 21 August 2023 in the membership register.

3.

However, it appears that after the said action, on 24 August 2023 a notice under Section 78 of the Maharashtra Cooperative

907-wp-168-2024.doc Societies Act, 1960 was issued to the Chairman, Secretary of the housing society which culminated into the order passed by this Court where the notice was withdrawn. Based on second show cause notice dated 3 November 2023, the impugned action under Section 78A has been initiated.

4.

It is well settled that the appointment of Administrator is a drastic action, the ground for appointment of Administrator must be in proportion that the illegalities alleged against elected committee. There is no allegation either misappropriation or financial irregularities committed by the elected committee. Moreover, consultation with the federal society which mandatory by Court has not followed. The speed in which the action which taken against the managing committee raises interference of malice in law as explained in the case of Kalabharati Advertising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors, reported in (2010) 9 SCC

437. Therefore, prima facie the petitioner has made out a case for entertaining the writ petition, dspite availability of alternative remedy by satisfying clause 5 of the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chhabil Das Agarwal, reported in 2014 1 SCC 603. Hence, until further orders, there shall be adinterim relief in terms of prayer clause (b). 5.

Respondent No.2 shall file the affidavit in reply within 4 weeks from today.

6.

Stand over to 21 February 2024.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)