Bharatshree Sahakari Griharachana Sanstha Maryadit Thr. Its Managing Committee Member v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr. The Department Of Co Operation And ORS
LSP 1 wp 9976.25.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 9976 of 2025 Bharatshree Sahakari Griharachana Sanstha Maryadit ...
Petitioner V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and others ...
Respondents.
Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil a/w. Mr. Divyesh K. Jain, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Smt. Ashwini A. Purav, AGP for the Respondents-State. CORAM : M.S. KARNIK & S.M. MODAK, JJ.
Digitally signed by LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Date:
2026.01.14 11:23:50 +0530 DATE : 12th January 2026.
LATA SUNIL PANJWANI P.C. : (PER S.M.MODAK, J) Heard Mr. Gavare Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Society and learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2.
The only prayer which is made in this petition is for issuing a writ of mandamus against Respondent No.2 to hear the Revision Application No.153/2025 along with the interim application for stay. The said revision application is filed before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Pune in the month of April 2025. The copy is on Page-35. This was filed against the order dated 25th March 2025 passed by the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Pune.
LSP 2 wp 9976.25.doc 3.
This order was passed by invoking the provisions of Section 23(2) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Direction was given to Society to give membership to 48 flat purchasers within 15 days. Those are the fresh purchasers in a building constructed after redevelopment. The Petitioner-Society contends that the Deputy Registrar has not considered various objections taken by the Society prior to issuing that direction.
4.
The Petitioner contends that they have got good merit in the said revision. However, the Revisional Authority is neither hearing the revision nor the said application. The Deputy Registrar as per the letter dated 22nd April 2025 has informed the Society to give compliance report and in case of failure Society is informed that the order will be implemented by appointing an officer. The Petitioner apprehends if the order is implemented, their revision will become infructuous and that is why present petition is filed. 5.
It is true the revision is still pending. It is a legitimate expectation of any litigant that grievance is to be heard at the earliest. The revision is pending since April 2025. It is true this Court is not aware about how many revisions are pending before the said Authority. At the same time, atleast the stay application needs to be heard on priority basis. Hence, we are inclined to direct the reivisional authority to decide the stay application as early as possible. Hence, the order:
LSP 3 wp 9976.25.doc
ORDER
(1) The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
(2) The Divisional Joint Registrar, District Pune is directed to hear the stay application filed in the Revision Application No.153/2025 as early as possible and not later than six weeks from communication of this order.
(3) It is made clear that we have not made any observations about merits of that revision application and Divisional Joint Regisrar is at liberty to decide the said application as per the merits and as per the law.
(S.M. MODAK, J.) (M.S.KARNIK, J.)