Grace Dieu Co Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd Thru. Secretary v. The Divisional Joint Registrar And ORS

MPBalekar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 17236 OF 2025 Grace Dieu Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Thru. Secretary y ... Petitioner V/s.

The Divisional Joint Registrar and Ors.

... Respondents Mr. Advait Shukla along with Mr. Prem Dubey for petitioner.

Mrs. S.R. Crasto, AGP for the State - respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4.

S. Parthasarthy along with Darshana Manjrekar i/by One Point Legal Solutions for respondent No. 3.

CORAM

: AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : JANUARY 21, 2026 P.C.:

1.

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2.

The petitioner contests an order passed by the Registrar. The Registrar acted under Section 154B-27 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

3.

Respondent No. 3 complained against a penalty of Rs. 750 imposed by the housing society. Respondent No. 3 asserted that the penalty violated the society's bye-laws and relevant Government Resolutions. The Registrar accepted this position. The Registrar held that the general body resolution authorizing such penalties was illegal. The Registrar then directed the society to issue revised

bills within fifteen days.

4.

This Court has interpreted Section 154B-27 in Petit Mansion C-Wing Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 17059 of 2025, decided on 16 January 2026). The Court examined Section 154B-27 in full. The Court held that the provision serves only as an enforcement mechanism. The provision ensures that a society performs duties already fixed under the Act or under its bye-laws. The Registrar cannot use this section to resolve disputes between a member and a society. The Registrar cannot interpret bye-laws when their meaning is contested. The Registrar cannot decide liability or correctness of charges. Such questions require adjudication of substantive rights. Section 154B-27 does not confer adjudicatory power. The section cannot replace formal dispute resolution under the Act. In the above judgment, the Court identified limits on the Registrar's authority under Section 154B-27. The Registrar had directed a society to rework earlier bills and issue supplementary bills. The Court held that such action lacked jurisdiction. 5.

The same reasoning applies in the present matter. The Registrar could not declare a general body resolution illegal on the ground that it conflicts with Government Resolutions or bye-laws. The Registrar also could not direct the society to issue revised bills within fifteen days. This direction involved adjudication of competing rights. It did not involve simple enforcement of existing duties. It therefore exceeded the narrow scope of Section 154B-27. The impugned orders cannot stand.

6.

Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 7.

This Court has not examined the merits of the society's claim or of respondent No. 3's defence. The proper forum will address those issues in appropriate proceedings.

8.

The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)