Suresh Ambadasrao Warpudkar v. Divisional Joint Registrar Co Op Societies And Another

2026:BHC-AUG:11523 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2762 OF 2026 SURESH AMBADASRAO WARPUDKAR

VERSUS

DIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR CO OP SOCIETIES AND ANOTHER ...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Deshpande (VC) h/f Mr. Manish P. Tripathi AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. S. D. Ghayal Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar ...

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

Date : 16th March, 2026 PER COURT :- 1.

The petitioner raises an exception to the notice dated 17.02.2026 issued by respondent No. 1 - Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhatrapati Sambhajiagar purpotedly invoking the provisions under Section 73(CA)(1)(f)(iii) and Section 73(CA)(1)(f)(iv) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

2.

Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was elected as a Director of respondent No. 6 - Bank, representing the Mauli Sai Samarth Dhanya Adhikosh Multipurpose Society. Subsequently, he was elected as the Chairman of respondent No. 2 - PDCC Bank. The petitioner has

-2been served with the impugned notice issued by respondent No. 1. According to Mr. Deshmukh, the respondents lack the authority to issue such a notice by invoking the provisions of Section 73(CA)(1) (f)(iii) and Section 73(CA)(1)(f)(iv) of the Act of 1960. The notice itself purportedly holds the petitioner disqualified and calls for an explanation as to why he should not be removed from the post of Director. He further submits that merely because the registration of the Society he represents has been cancelled, the action contemplated under Section 73(CA) of the Act cannot be initiated. 3.

This Court finds that the petitioner has merely been served with a show-cause notice. It remains open for the petitioner to file a reply to the said notice. All contentions raised in this writ petition may be considered by the concerned Authority and appropriate orders may be passed. Therefore, there is no reason to entertain the present writ petition. However, at this stage, Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is an apprehension that the aforesaid notice will be used as a political foundation against the petitioner and that there is every likelihood of an order being passed under political influence. 4.

Considering the aforesaid contention, this Court finds

-3that the petitioner can be granted limited protection in the event an adverse order is passed against him.

5.

In view of the matter, the writ petition stands rejected with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate reply to the impugned show-cause notice. However, in the event any adverse order is passed, such order shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks thereafter.

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) Omkar Joshi