Vijay Pawar v. The Deputy Registrar Coopetive Societies

907-13252-2025.doc Shabnoor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.13252 OF 2025 Digitally signed by SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Date:

2025.10.09 17:18:49 +0530 SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Vijay Pawar ... Petitioner V/s.

The Deputy Registrar, of Cooperative Societies, Thane & Ors.

... Respondents Mr. Tarun Sharma a/w Apurva Gupte, Mahesh Patil, Hansraj Solanki, for the petitioner.

Mr. Vivek Sharma i/b H. R. Sharma & Associates for the Intervener.

Shweta Korgaonkar in person is present.

Mrs. P. J. Gavhane, AGP, for the State - respondent Nos.1 and 4.

Mr. Vishwajeet Kapse i/b Nikhil Rajeshrike for respondent No.2.

CORAM

: AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : OCTOBER 9, 2025 P.C.:

1.

The writ petition arises from the exercise of power by the Registrar under Section 79 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, whereby the Registrar appointed an Authorized Officer to conduct a meeting of the Special General Body of the housing society to discuss the issue of redevelopment of the said society.

2.

According to the contesting respondents, the meeting pursuant to such appointment has already been conducted and a

907-13252-2025.doc Resolution has been passed. However, according to the petitioner, the Managing Committee has not conducted the meeting in accordance with the provisions of the bye-laws, Rules, the Act, and the directions issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 79A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The members, therefore, challenged the order passed by the Registrar appointing the Authorized Officer before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority refused to grant a stay, against which the present writ petition has been filed. 3.

In my opinion, the order appointing the Authorized Officer has already been executed and has come to an end in the context of its execution. Therefore, there is no question of granting a stay on an order that has already been executed. Hence, no interference is called for.

4.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)