Neeta Sawant                                                                                                                                                 WP-2980 OF 2021   

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 2980 OF 2021

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10703 OF 2025

Raghuleela Megamall Kandivali (West) ...Petitioner

V/s.

1. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-

operative Society, Mumbai Division,

Mumbai.

2. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative

Societies, R-South Ward, Mumbai.

3. Mr. L.B. Tiwari ...Respondents

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10703 OF 2025

Dr. Lalchandra Badriprasad Tiwari ...Applicant

In the matter between :

Raghuleela Megamall Kandivali (West) ...Petitioner

V/s.

1. Ld. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-

operative Society, Mumbai Division,

Mumbai.

2. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative

Societies, R-South Ward, Mumbai.

3. Mr. L.B. Tiwari ...Respondents

Page No.   1   of   21  

25 June  2026

Neeta Sawant                                                                                                                                                 WP-2980 OF 2021   

________________

Mr. G.S.Godbole, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nilkanth Bhadrashete, Mr.

Raghavendra Mehrotra, Mr. Irfan A. Shaikh and Ms. M.J. Shaikh i/b.

Lawkhart Legal Advocates & Legal Consultants, for the Petitioner.

Mr. Y.S. Kochare, 'B' Panel Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State.

Ms. Anima Mishra with Mr. Anuj Singh, for Respondent No.3 and for

Applicant in IA-10703-2025.

________________

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Judgment Reserved on : 17 June 2026.

Judgment Pronounced on : 25 June 2026.

JUDGMENT:

1) By this Petition, the Petitioner-Society has challenged order

dated 9 March 2020 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-

operative Societies, Mumbai Division (Divisional Joint Registrar)

dismissing Revision Application No.212 of 2019 and con�rming the order

dated 2 March 2019 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative

Societies, R/S Ward, Mumbai (Deputy Registrar). Order dated 2 March

2019 is passed by the Deputy Registrar in exercise of powers under

Section 83 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS

Act) appointing an authorised of�cer to conduct enquiry into the affairs

of the Society.

2) The Petitioner is a cooperative society formed by occupiers

of units in Raghuleela Megamall, Kandivali (W) Mumbai. The Managing

Page No.   2   of   21  

25 June  2026

Neeta Sawant                                                                                                                                                 WP-2980 OF 2021   

Committee of Petitioner-Society was elected and took charge of the

Society on 31 January 2018. Respondent No.3 is a member of the

Petitioner-Society. According to the Petitioner, Respondent No.3

misrepresented to the members that he is an Advocate. That his

engagement was discontinued by the Society. That the Society passed a

resolution in the Annual General Body Meeting for initiation of actions

against Respondent No.3 and his wife. According to the Petitioner,

Respondent No.3 started �ling complaints against the Society due to

personal vengeance. On 9 March 2018, Respondent No.3 �led complaint

before the Deputy Registrar, on the basis of which enquiry was ordered

under Section 83 of the MCS Act by appointment of Enquiry Of�cer by

the Deputy Registrar vide order dated 13 April 2018. The Petitioner

challenged order dated 13 April 2018 before the Divisional Joint

Registrar, who proceeded to set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar

and remanded the case for fresh consideration before the Deputy

Registrar vide order dated 14 August 2018. In the remanded proceedings,

the Deputy Registrar passed fresh order dated 2 March 2019 and once

again appointed Enquiry Of�cer under Section 83 of the MCS Act to

conduct enquiry into affairs of the Society. The Petitioner �led Revision

Application No.212 of 2019 challenging the order of the Deputy Registrar

before the Divisional Joint Registrar. By order dated 9 March 2020, the

Divisional Joint Registrar has dismissed Revision Application No.212 of

2019 �led by the Petitioner-Society.

3) Accordingly, the Petitioner-Society has �led the present

Petition challenging the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar

Page No.   3   of   21  

25 June  2026

Neeta Sawant                                                                                                                                                 WP-2980 OF 2021   

dated 9 March 2020, which has con�rmed the order dated 2 March 2019

passed by the Deputy Registrar. By order dated 19 July 2021 this Court

stayed the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar. By order dated 21

February 2024 the Petition was admitted, and order dated 2 March 2019

passed by the Deputy Registrar has been stayed. The Petition is called

out for �nal hearing.

4) Mr. Godbole, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

Petitioner submits that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar on 2

March 2019 is ex-facie illegal and in the teeth of provisions of Section 83

of the MCS Act. That the order of the Deputy Registrar is passed acting

on complaint of Respondent No.3, who is member of the Society. That

provisions of Section 83 required requisition by 1/5

th

of the members.

That Deputy Registrar has not exercised powers suo moto and has acted

only on the basis of complaint of Respondent No.3. That the Deputy

Registrar has not applied his mind independently for suo moto exercise of

powers under Section 83 of the MCS Act. He relies on judgment of this

Court in Ashok Saha and Ors. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

1

in support of his contention that suo moto power cannot be exercised by

the Deputy Registrar. Mr. Godbole also relies on judgment of the Apex

Court in S.D.N. Roy & S.K. Banerjee & Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors.

2

5) Mr. Godbole further submits that order of the Deputy

Registrar dated 2 March 2019 is otherwise barred by principle of res

judicata. That the earlier order passed by the Deputy Registrar on 13

1 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 502

2 1973 3 SCC 119

Page No.   4   of   21  

25 June  2026

Neeta Sawant                                                                                                                                                 WP-2980 OF 2021   

April 2018 acting on complaint of Respondent No.3 was set aside by the

Divisional Joint Registrar vide order dated 14 August 2018 by relying on

judgment of this Court in Ashok Saha (supra). He submits that though

proceedings are remanded by the Divisional Joint Registrar, the remand

was for verifying the other factors (not complaint of Respondent No.3)

for the purpose of exercise of suo moto power under Section 83 of the

MCS Act. He submits that while passing order dated 2 March 2019, the

Deputy Registrar has not taken into consideration any material other

than complaint of Respondent No.3. Mr. Godbole accordingly prays for

setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Registrar and

Divisional Joint Registrar.

6) Ms. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for Responde nt

No.3 opposes the Petition submitting that the Deputy Registrar and the

Divisional Joint Registrar have recorded concurrent �ndings against the

Petitioner-Society. That mass irregularities are committed in the affairs

of the Society. That the Managing Committee has withdrawn huge

amount from funds of the Society without taking approval of the AGM.

That the Committee has granted �nancial aid to NGO. That 30

housekeeping staff are appointed while disbursing salaries to 56 staff.

That the Managing Committee has spent additional expe nses of

Rs.80,000/- on housekeeping. That therefore the Deputy Registrar has

exercised powers under Section 83 of the MCS Act for conduct of enquiry

into the affairs of the Society. As of now, mere Enquiry Of�cer is

appointed and no prejudice is caused to the Society or its Managing

Committee. That the enquiry will bear out the truth.

Page No.   5   of   21  

25 June  2026

Neeta Sawant                                                                                                                                                 WP-2980 OF 2021   

7) Ms. Mishra submits that the Deputy Registrar is entitled to

act on the complaint �led by member for exercise of suo moto powers.

That in the present case, complaint of Respondent No.3 is used as a

source information by the Deputy Registrar, who has applied his

independent mind to the material brought to his notice. In support of

her contention that complaint of a member or third party can be taken

into consideration by the Deputy Registrar, Ms. Mishra relies on

judgment of this Court in Janhit Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit,

Pune V/s. State of Maharashtra and Others

3

. She also relies on

judgment of this Court in Jeevan Niwas Co-operative Housing Society

LImited and Another V/s. State of Maharashtra and Others

4

. Ms. Mishra

accordingly submits that the Deputy Registrar has correctly exercised

suo moto power under Section 83 of the MCS Act. That the Petitioner and

its Managing Committee would get full opportunity of defending

themselves in the enquiry. She prays for dismissal of the Petition.

8) Mr. Kochare, the learned AGP appearing for Respondent N os.

1 and 2-State also opposes the Petition. He submits that wider

interpretation is required to be given to the term ‘suo moto’ used in

Section 83 of the MCS Act, recognizing power to act on the compliant. He

relies on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Jayprakash

Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Mrt. V/s. State of Maharashtra and

Ors.

5

3 Writ Petition No.1286 of 2022 decided on 15 December 2023.

4 Writ Petition No.1953 of 2007 decided on 17 March 2016.

5 Writ Petition No.1190 of 2022 decided on 22 March 2022.

Page No.   6   of   21  

25 June  2026

Neeta Sawant                                                                                                                                                 WP-2980 OF 2021   

9) Rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties now fall my

consideration.

10) Petitioner-Society is aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy

Registrar in ordering enquiry into its affairs and appointing an

authorised of�cer to conduct such enquiry in exercise of powers under

Section 83 of the MCS Act. The decision of the Deputy Registrar is

challenged essentially on the ground that the Deputy Registrar has

exercised jurisdiction under Section 83 of the MCS Act by acting on a

complaint made by one member when provisions of Section 83 require

requisition by atleast 1/5

th

members of the Society. It would therefore be

apt to consider provisions of Section 83 of the MCS, Act which are as

under:

83. Inquiry by Registrar.—

1(1) The Registrar may suo motu, or, on the application of the one-�fth

members of the society or on the basis of Special Report under the third

proviso to sub-section (5B) of section 81, himself or by a person duly

authorised by him in writing, in this behalf, shall hold an inquiry into

the constitution, working and �nancial conditions of the society.

(2) Before holding any such inquiry on an application, the Registrar

may [having regard to the nature of allegations and the inquiry

involved, require the applicant to deposit with him such sum of money

as he may determine,] towards the cost of the inquiry. If the allegations

made in the application are substantially proved at the inquiry, the

deposit shall be refunded to the applicant, and the Registrar may under

section 85, after following the procedure laid down in that section,

direct from whom and to what extent the cost of the inquiry should be

recovered. If it is proved that the allegations were false, vexatious or

malicious, the Registrar may likewise direct that such cost shall be

recovered from the applicant. Where the result of the inquiry shows

that the allegations were not false, vexatious or malicious, but could not

be proved, such cost may be borne by the State Government.

Page No.   7   of   21  

25 June  2026

Neeta Sawant                                                                                                                                                 WP-2980 OF 2021   

(3) (a) All of�cers, members and past members of the society in respect

of which an inquiry is held, and any other person who, in the opinion of

the of�cer holding the inquiry is in possession of information, books

and papers relating to the society, shall furnish such information as in

their possession, and produce all books and papers relating to the

society which are in their custody or power, and otherwise give to the

of�cer holding an inquiry all assistance in connection with the inquiry

which they can reasonably give.

(b) If any such person refuses to produce to the Registrar or any person

authorised by him under sub-section (1), any book or papers which it is

his duty under clause (a) to produce or to answer any question which is

put to him by the Registrar or the person authorised by the Registrar in

pursuance of sub-clause (a), the Registrar or the person authorised by

the Registrar may certify the refusal and the Registrar, after hearing any

statement which may be offered in defence, punish the defaulter with a

penalty not exceeding [�ve thousand rupees]. Any sum imposed as

penalty under this section shall, on the application by the Registrar or

the person authorised by him, to a Magistrate having jurisdiction, be

recoverable by the Magistrate as if it were a �ne imposed by himself.

(c) The Registrar or the of�cer authorised by him shall complete the

inquiry and submit his report as far as possible within a period of six

months and in any case not later than nine months.

(4) The result of any inquiry under this section shall be communicated

to the society whose affairs have been investigated.

(5) It shall be competent for the Registrar to withdraw any inquiry from

the of�cer to whom it is entrusted, and to hold the inquiry himself or

entrust it to any other person as he deems �t.

11) Thus, under Section 83, the Registrar can order enquiry in

the following 3 situations:

(i)suo-moto

(ii)on application of 1/5th members of the Society, or

(iii)on the basis of special report under the Third Proviso to sub-

section 5(b) of Section 81.

Page No.   8   of   21  

25 June  2026

Neeta Sawant                                                                                                                                                 WP-2980 OF 2021   

12) Mr. Godbole, has relied upon judgment of this Court in

Ashok Saha, in which it is held in paras-6 and 7 as under:

6. Mr. D'Costa, Respondent No. 4 who appeared in person, submitted

that the Registrar even otherwise of his own is permitted under the Act

to take such action and can invoke W.P. No. 544.11 Section 83 and order

an enquiry. Then merely because a reference is made to the complaint

�led should not be the reason to overlook the enquiry so conducted as

the Registrar or the other of�cers may not be aware of the affairs and

mismanagement of the society. Therefore, this is the only way whereby

any other person/member of the society and/or even in the given case, a

third person can �le complaint and revoke power of the Registrar.

Admittedly, Respondent No. 4 is the member of the society and not the

third person.

7 .In my view, not only the Registrar but there are of�cers who are

responsible and have various obligations under the Act who are bound

to look into the affairs of the society from time to time. Therefore, the

Registrar can take note of information so received and may of his own

proceed to hold the enquiry. In the present case, it is based upon the

complaint. Therefore it is necessary that such application or complaint

should be supported by one-third of the members of the society. The

aspect that some members or one member is against the particular

action of the society/managing committee, that itself should not be the

reason to invoke the provisions of Section 83 of the M.C.S. Act. But if an

application is �led by the requisite members of the society, the

Registrar is under obligation to take action as contemplated.

13) I had an occasion to interpret provisions of Section 83 of the

MCS Act in the context of judgment of this Court in Ashok Saha (supra)

in Janhit Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit (supra). After taking

into consideration, the ratio of the judgments of this Court in Vitthal

Co-operative Housing Society Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar CSMD and

ors.

6

and Ashok Saha, this Court held in paras-10 to 13 as under :

10. Thus, under section 83 of the MCS Act, inquiry can be held into the

constitution working or �nancial conditions of a Society under three

6 2015 2 MH.L.J. 452

Page No.   9   of   21  

25 June  2026

Neeta Sawant                                                                                                                                                 WP-2980 OF 2021   

eventualities viz. (i) suo moto by Registrar, (ii) on application of 1/5th

members of the Society and (iii) on the basis of special report under 3

rd proviso of section 81 (5B). It must be noted here that the word ‘may’

is used for holding of suo moto inquiry by Registrar whereas the word

‘shall’ is used for holding inquiry at the instance of application by 1/5th

members of the Society or on the basis of special report. Thus, statutory

scheme is such that if 1/5th members of the Society make an

application, holding of inquiry is mandatory. On the contrary, use of the

word ‘may’ for exercise of power of the Registrar to hold suo moto

inquiry indicates that upon receipt of an information, the Registrar may

or may not order inquiry. For the purpose of holding inquiry suo moto,

the Registrar can always receive information from various sources. One

such source could be in the form of a complaint made by persons who is

not a member. Thus, there cannot be an absolute proposition that a

non-member can never �le a complaint with the Registrar or that the

Registrar cannot look into such complaint for suo moto ordering an

inquiry. The only difference between Registrar’s suo moto power to hold

inquiry and inquiry on application of 1/5th members is that the

Registrar may or may not exercise suo moto upon receipt of complaint

from a non-member, but he is bound to hold inquiry on receipt of

requisition from 1/5th members of the Society. Thus if a non-member

makes an application to the Registrar, the Registrar is not bound to hold

an inquiry unlike the situation where 1/5th of the members �le an

application for holding inquiry. I am unable to agree with the

submission of Mr. Panchpor that under no circumstances, the Registrar

can entertain an application by non-member or ex-employee for

ordering an inquiry under section 83 of the MCS Act. In a given

circumstance, a complaint by non-member can become a source of

information for the Registrar for exercise of suo moto power. Thus

everything would depend of facts of each case, the nature of

information divulged in a compliant, familiarity of complainant with

affairs of society and application of mind by the Registrar to such

information.

11. Reliance is placed by Mr. Panchpor on the Judgment of Single Bench

of this Court in Vithalnagar Co-operative Housing Society (supra). In

that case, the application was �led by a non-member demanding

institution of inquiry under section 83. This court held in paragraph No.

3, 4 and 6 as under :-

xxx

12. Mr. Panchpor would also rely upon Judgment of this Court in Ashok

Saha (supra) in which it is held in paragraph No. 7 as under :-

xxx

Page No.   10   of   21  

25 June  2026

Neeta Sawant                                                                                                                                                 WP-2980 OF 2021   

13. Thus both in Vithalnagar Co-operative Housing Society and Ashok

Saha this Court has taken a view that though Registrar can take note of

information disclosed in complaint by a non-member, such compliant

stands on a completely different pedestal and cannot be compared with

requisition by 1/5th members.

14) Similar view appears to have been taken by another Single

Judge of this Court (M.S. Sonak, J. as he then was) in Jeevan Niwas CHSL,

in which it is held in paras-11 to 14 as under :

11] The ratio decidendi of the decision of in the case of Ashok Saha

(supra) is that the Registrar is not bound to order inquiry under Section

83 (1) of the said Act, on the basis of complaint of a member or some

members, who do not constitute requisite percentage of members as

prescribed under Section 83(1) of the said Act. If however, the complaint

or application is made by the requisite percentage of members of the

society, the Registrar is obligated to order inquiry, subject of course, to

ful�llment of other parameters prescribed under Section 83(1) of the

said Act.

12] The decision in the case of Ashok Saha (supra) is however, not an

authority for the proposition that the Registrar lacks jurisdiction to

order an inquiry under Section 83 (1) of the said Act either suo motu or

on the basis of special report under third proviso to sub-section (5B) of

Section 81, merely because a complaint may have been made by some

member or members, who do not constitute the requisite percentage as

prescribed under Section 83(1) of the said Act. That would not be a

correct manner reading the decision in case of Ashok Saha (supra). It

must be noted upon the authority of decision of the House of Lords in

case of Quinn vs. Leatham that a judgment is authority for the

proposition, which it decides and not what can be deduced therefrom.

Further, as has been held in the case of Mittal Engineering Works (P)

Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, a judgment is not a

precedent on a proposition which it did not decide.

13] Therefore, mere circumstance that a complaint may have been made

by some member or members not constituting the requisite percentage

of members as prescribed under Section 83(1) of the said Act, does not

oust the jurisdiction of the Registrar to order inquiry under Section

83(1) of the said Act either suo motu or on the basis of special report

under the 3rd proviso to Section (5B) of Section 81. Of course, before

exercising suo motu powers, there has to be material on record

warranting exercise of such powers. Further, the Registrar has to

Page No.   11   of   21  

25 June  2026

Neeta Sawant                                                                                                                                                 WP-2980 OF 2021   

genuinely apply his mind to such material, with a view to form an

opinion as to whether inquiry under Section 83 (1) of the said Act is

indeed warranted, in the facts and circumstances, so presented. If

Registrar, virtually abdicates his powers and discretion to the dictates

of some private complainant, then obviously, exercise of power by the

Registrar, will be unsustainable.

14] Reverting to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the

material on record indicates that the respondent no.2 has basically

made the impugned order, on the basis of audit reports and the

responses furnished by the petitioner society with regard to prima-facie

objections raised in the audit reports. No doubt, the respondent no.2

has also looked into or adverted to the complaints made by respondent

no.4. This is quite clear from the terms of inquiry referred to in the

impugned order or in the corrigendum subsequently issued. However,

that by itself, is not suf�cient to conclude the respondent no.2 has

abdicated his discretion to the dictates of respondent no.4, at the stage

of making of impugned order. As noted earlier, the emphasis is basically

upon the objections and the irregularities pointed out in the audit

reports and the circumstance that the response of the petitioner society

to the objections raised in audit reports was prima-facie unsatisfactory.

In matters of judicial review of administrative action, adequacy of

material is not usually gone into. So also the defences which the

petitioner society might have on the merits, in the course of inquiry, are

not to be gone into at this stage. Suf�ce to record that the impugned

order cannot be said to have been made solely on the basis of complaint

made by respondent no.4, but the same can be said to be the result of

suo motu exercise of powers by the Registrar on the basis of material

before him, in the form of audit reports, prima-facie, unsatisfactory

response by the society coupled with certain irregularities referred to by

the respondent no.4. Accordingly, it is not possible to accept the

petitioner society's contention that the impugned order is ultra vires

Section 83(1) of the said Act.

15) The ratio of Single Judge judgment in Janhit Nagari

Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit is taken note of by the Division Bench in

Jayprakash Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Mrt. It is held by the

Division Bench in paras-13, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the judgment as under :

13. The petitioner is not justi�ed in relying upon the decision of the

Single Judge of this Court in case of Vithalnagar Co-operative Housing

Society (supra). The said decision based on its own facts and facts

before us are not the same. Even otherwise, this Court in a recent

Page No.   12   of   21  

25 June  2026

Neeta Sawant                                                                                                                                                 WP-2980 OF 2021   

decision of Janhit Nagari Sahakari Path Santha Maryadit Vs. State of

Maharashtra has considered this decision and observed that a blanket

proposition, that an enquiry cannot be initiated at the behest of a

complaint lodged by a non-member was rejected. In our view, by

applying the ratio of the decision of this Court in case of Janhit Nagari

Sahakari Path Santha Maryadit (supra) to the facts of the present case,

the petitioner’s contention that the enquiry report at the behest of

respondent no.4 is illegal cannot be accepted.

15. It is important to note that under Section 83 of the MCS Act, power

is given to the Registrar for holding an inquiry regarding the

constitution, working and �nancial conditions of a society. This is a

regulatory and supervisory power to ensure that the Society is

functioning in accordance with law. In our view, such a provision has to

be construed widely looking at the objects of the Act and the regulatory

and supervisory provisions enshrined in Section 83 of the MCS Act. The

said section per se does not mandate that no other person shall

complain and on the basis of which the Registrar cannot exercise his

powers under Section 83. In our view, if the information is received

from a third person then, the Registrar has to apply his mind to the said

information and thereafter if satis�ed, would decide whether to initiate

the enquiry. The phrase “suo-motu” has to be understood in that sense.

The Registrar acts essentially on his own accord and satisfaction albeit

the information being a motivator. If any other interpretation is given

to suo-motu under Sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the MCS Act then, it

would become meaningless and therefore, the only purpos eful

interpretation would be to mean that on receipt of information from

third person, the Registrar if satis�ed, would take suo-motu action.

16. We may draw support for above from the decision of the Supreme

Court in case of K Pandurangan Vs. SSR Velusamy 4 wherein the

Supreme Court observed in connection with the provisions of the Code

of Criminal Procedure with regard to suo-motu power to revision as

under :-

“6. So far as the �rst question as to the maintainability of the revision

at the instance of the complainant is concerned, we think the said

argument has only to be noted to be rejected. Under the provisions of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court has suo motu power of

revision, if that be so, the question of the same being invoked at the

instance of an outsider would not make any difference because

ultimately it is the power of revision which is already vested with the

High Court statutorily that is being exercised by the High Court.

Therefore, whether the same is done by itself or at the instance of a

third party will not affect such power of the High Court. In this regard,

we may note the following judgment of this Court in the case of Nadir

Khan v. State (Delhi Admn).”

(emphasis supplied)

Page No.   13   of   21  

25 June  2026

Neeta Sawant                                                                                                                                                 WP-2980 OF 2021   

17. In our view, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the

impugned enquiry report is at the behest of respondent no.4 who is not

a member and therefore the report prepared by respondent nos.2 & 3 is

illegal is required to be rejected.

18. The initiation of enquiry is not only based on complaint of

respondent no.4 but also other statutory authorities as evident from

communications dated 1st September 2021, 15th November 2021, 24th

November 2021 and 10th February 2022. Section 83(1) empowers the

Registrar to initiate inquiry suo-motu or on application of requisite

members. Therefore, “suo-motu” has to be read in contradistinction to

“members”. A Registrar may receive information from various sources

including a person who is a legal heir of deceased member which

compels him to take action.

16) The law thus appears to be fairly well settled that there is no

allergy to the Registrar acting either on a complaint of a third person or

on compliant of even a single member while exercising suo-moto powers

under Section 83 of the MCS Act. Such complaint can be one of the

source information received by the Registrar and provisions of Section 83

do not prohibit him from acting on such complaint while exercising suo-

moto powers. Therefore, I do not agree with the submissions of Mr.

Godbole that when a member desires to initiate proceedings under

Section 83 of the MCS Act, he must have backing of 1/5

th

members and

unless complaint is signed by 1/5

th

members, the Registrar cannot act on

such complaint. Registrar can take cognizance of complaint made even

by a single member, treat it as a source information and conduct his own

enquiry/investigation for arriving at a conclusion for exercise of suo-

moto powers under Section 83 of the MCS Act. Therefore, the impugned

order cannot be held to be illegal only on account of absence of

requisition/complaint by 1/5

th

members of the Society.

Page No.   14   of   21  

25 June  2026

Neeta Sawant                                                                                                                                                 WP-2980 OF 2021   

17) The next issue for consideration is whether the pow er

exercised by the Deputy Registrar for initiation of enquiry can be treated

as suo-moto power within the meaning of Section 83 of the MCS Act. In

Janhit Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit though this Court has

recognised the principle of permissibility for Registrar to act on a

complaint (in absence of requisition from 1/5

th

members) for exercise of

suo-moto powers, ultimately this Court found that the Deputy Registrar

in that case had not applied independent mind and had appointed

Enquiry Of�cer by merely referring to the complaint. This is clear from

following �ndings in the judgment:

14. Having considered the statutory framework and law laid down by

this Court, it is necessary to examine whether the decision of the

Deputy Registrar in directing holding of inquiry is warranted. The Order

passed by Deputy Registrar on 02 July 2019 reads thus :-

Pag,

�ी राजकु5.oNJo.g

un063N46J.78o9f, 5N.-२ (�ाहक) सहकारी सं�था, पुणे. un3!- Lamf0CanNOSC

r0dcDb7m5hHJC0,nOC-Ln.(SC()i9SCiO47/n/0

dcJ+.- मा. �ज�हा उप�नबंधक, सहकारी सं�था, पुणेशहर, यांचेकडील जा.�. �जउ�नपुश /

".7g/ Lamf0r0/g.अ./१०४२९/२०१९, �दनांक २३/०५/8214CO7LS(7C-Ln.d7/0(nC

�ी. de/SOC8-fn9C5C:0OCMnc(nCmJanci/०६/०६/8214CO7LS(7C8C0,nOC-L..

.7o7<Nun3!.f06N8746N49Nn6/ 6gN!6g6, Lamf0CanNOSCdfinOSCr0dcDbnCBMn.mJ0,

कॅ &#154011981;प, re47CMnCdcDb70SWCdc(nWiCBc0?, r0dcDb7(7C8/- -2/inOSC5CiB.(nOSCMncaSC

@d54ुiCi7 -MnBe?7CAMncBMn5OCNeCf7CJnoWCiO47/n/0C5Cd5.CiL.C1iO4nc(SCचौकशी

क&#154143042;न सं&#154667341;थेकडूaCF70C-dW7-MnC/7inMJnCWn+n(SC()i9SCiDaCAMnc(7Cdc(nWiCrJCO&#10058969450790;

iDaCAMncBMn5OC@)LJnOSCinO5nHCiO47/n/0CBnN4SCi7 W7WSC8f7.

AMndC-aedDaCdJOC0,nOC-Ln.(SC()i9SCiO47inBSC8rWSCmaMु<ICiO470CM70C8f7.

d7/0CdcJJ+MC8C0,nOC-L.CL70ूaCrnKm5W7W7C8f70. 0OSCdJOC0,nOC-Ln.(SCBeG7mafnMC

do7WC()i9SCiDaC8rW7CD5cMDrLC-M+1nMndfC()i9SC-f5nWCJ7aCPgNgN!.N

inMn.WMndCOCmJ5dnc0CdnJOCiOn5n.

Page No.   15   of   21  

25 June  2026

Neeta Sawant                                                                                                                                                 WP-2980 OF 2021   

15. The decision dated 02 July 2019 does not indicate application of

independent mind by the Deputy Registrar. He has merely referred to

the &#6684777;ling of complaint by Shri. Sudhir Alhat and others on 06 June 2019

and has decided to appoint Special Auditor for holding inquiry.

Therefore, even if complaint dated 06 June 2019 is treated as source of

information received by the Deputy Registrar for taking suo moto

decision, there is nothing on record to indicate application of mind by

the Deputy Registrar to the allegations levelled in the complaint. The

Deputy Registrar has proceeded to direct holding of an inquiry in a

mechanical manner. He has placed the compliant on par with a

requisition by 1/5th of members for mandatorily directing inquiry. In

my view therefore, decision of the Deputy Registrar dated 02 July 2019

is totally erroneous.

18) In the present case, after the proceedings were remanded to

the Deputy Registrar, it appears that he has conducted hearing into the

complaint of Respondent No.3 dated 9 March 2018. The complaint &#6684777;nds

reference in Item No.2 in the beginning of the order. The Deputy

Registrar has adjudicated the complaint of Respondent No.3 by

conducting hearings and by recording submissions of Respondent No.3

and of the Society. After recording the rival submissions, the Deputy

Registrar has recorded following &#6684777;ndings:

अ&#153946431;&#10101919123757;&#10076149319984;ायः -

gL e3 e y -bu 3 dt mW tWtu gL e BMo v ‘y Ck'g Mk&#6684777;tWtu m D3)QW v

सं&#154667341;थेने दाखल के लेले लेखी &#154011981;हणणे पा&#154470719;हले. gL e3 e y -bu C-pSWgut RyvpS )m

Cinguzy m nm M ' 'g v C-pSWgut RyvpS )m CingubW vSyiFm pv S om1eg

m y3y gut geg]3uTW AT-’b m2b C-pSWzy ibNuT 'Wm y3W(ue)cW v )e mWलेला आहे.

‘y TRn cW C-pSWgut RyvpS )m C n :y C-3P og y -zy b gWv Qm, inQn-&#6684777;ju v

i,gaTgm y -zy 7nob (सं&#154667341;थाना) m nW 3Wg BC]b C-pSWzy ibNuT DSev )e meug G,Wg

C-pSWTu G”Sm bKmC b ,kUy Tu 3 E (Vyg ibn oc W tWtu G,W. '0. Pf.o(  g&.o

mW tWtu BC]b gL e3 e y -bu y m y oty TW n, e &&#156043568;सहकारी सं&#154667341;था अ&#153356607;ध&#154470719;नयम १९६० चे

mtn O6 B:vyW m yov ,u meUy C ivb-gu mW tWtu G,W.

&#153356621;याअनुषं&#10101919123735;ाने सं&#154667341;थेचे लेखी &#154011981;हणणे सादर के ले असून &#153356621;यांनी महारा&#10131983894815;&#156043568;सहकारी सं&#154667341;था

BaNibyn /8IO TW mtn O6 nNut geg]3u bKC e ib'-Nm m y oty C C-pSWgutएकूण

स&#10101919123757;ासदांपैकी १/ 6 CP C3 bW BMo mW 0y C C-pSWTu Twm(u meUy m1eg R aNmृg

अ&#153356607;धकारी यांची नेमणूm meg yWgW BCW bn]3 mW tWtW G,W. ‘y T Rn cW G.W) ’WgtWt G,W

की, ib'-Nm e Ym T CP C3 zy gL euzy BbKs-D bW n, e &&#156043568;सहकारी सं&#154667341;था अ&#153356607;ध&#154470719;नयम

Page No.   16   of   21  

25 June  2026

Neeta Sawant                                                                                                                                                 WP-2980 OF 2021   

/8IO TW mtn O6 B:vyW Twm(u BaNm eu bWng yWg b ,u. सदर मुदयां&#152701261;या अनुषं&#10101919123735;ाने

C-pSWbW ‘y -zy H,cUy Ck'g n . .[ C!.!.4!.g 4 !.a(f. &. ५४४/ २०१९ अशोक

C, v 4ge iv2f3 n, e &&#156043568;( Cb v 4ge y 3 Ry nfyW ibcoy T GN e ’WgtWt G,W.

‘y nKjW gL e3 e y -T BMo ibm tu m \Uym 1eg ivb-gu mW tWtu G,W.

vpg]]pSgu B(u m“, gL e3 e y -bu y m y oty nfyW mW tW0y gL euzy

अनुषं&#10101919123735;ाने लेखी खुt C v g^&#6684777;u yुF“v 3 gCWT C-pSWbW tWdu dुt C v g^&#6684777;u yु<In.% f6 4.

BC]b ‘y nfyW p)& ib3(ob C yWgW m“, gL e3 e y -bu ‘y -zy gL eunNut nK3y -zy

BbKs-D bW C-pSWgut m eP e Tu Twm(u meUy m1eg ivb-gu mW tu BCtu geu n, e &&#156043568;

C,m eu C-pS BaNibyn /8IO TW mtn O6 B:vyW d tut Rn cW p)& geg]3 Gहे.

ib'-Nm C pvgP,ूb _mv C-pSWzy // q C3py -bu mW tW0y BM ov2b

_fn. f45 O1 B!. 779f45 6 (ब) zy agC- y )e-g]m :vyW"un063

B,v t zy GN eW" pvgzy _mv y ' 'g BaNm eu y -bu C-pSWzy

DSeRyv, e ' 'gT iv(Ws B,v t R ` W 0y ve B,v t zy BbKs-D bW n,ारा&#10131983894815;&#156043568;

C,m eu C-pS BaNibyn /8IO TW mtn O6 B:vyW Twm(u BaNm eu bWng

!6g..

gL e3 e y -bu y m y oty zy ib3(ob C Gcून &#154470719;दले आहे की, सं&#154667341;थे&#152701261;या

RyvpS )m CingubW 'Wm y3W(ue1e‘y C-pSWzy DSev )e m2b ean 2 OO,०००/- हाऊस

im) D meug Bag1eF dTo B3 mW tWt G,W. gCWT C-pSWzy ibNug]b m ,u pan v

ean RyvpS )m Cingu C3py -nfyW v E) mW tW0y G,W. C-pSWzy RyvpS )m CingubW

CvoC N ec CPWTu )]vo)ev bDu v nkc ean m \ू" A!.(. n.7o *6f.!%60 o8oA!.

के लेला आहे. gCWT m ,u Yb 'u d y -b G”Sm n3g mW tWtu G,W C-pSWTW RyvpS )m -bu

C-pSWzy ibNug]b 'Wm y3W(ue ean m \ूb ‘y ' 'gTW )Ke vW b& mW tWtW G,W. सं&#154667341;थेम&#153553229;य

, bC im) D m1eg 6O y -zy ibyुVy m2b C-pSWzy ibNug]b R‘y. C qI mnoT -

y -TW vWgb C-pSWm&#6684777;ूb ’WUy g GtWtW G,Wg. &#153356621;या&#10076149319984;माणे सं&#154667341;थेने सादर क&#154143041;न लेखापरी&#9985955006775;ण

B,v t nfyW m ,u (WeW bn]3 mW tWtW G,Wg.

C-pSWzy RyvpS )m CingubW C-pSWzy ibNuT v )e , A)ivNugut

geg]3ubKC e BSv CvoC N ec CPWzy )]vo )ev bDu mW tWt G,W _mv b ,u gCWT

C-pSWzy eTb agTW m nm M G"c agTu G”Sm ]pSgu y ' 'g Twm(u B:vyW

)&#6684777;g jcu mecW R‘y. G,W BCW y m y oty TW ng W tWtW G,W. &#154011981;हणून खालील &#10076149319984;माणे

G3W( m1eg G,W.

19) Though, it may appear as if the Deputy Registrar ha s

recorded his own independent &#6684777;ndings after consideration of

submissions made by rival parties, factually the position is otherwise.

Even under the heading 'Opinion', the Deputy Registrar has again

reproduced or summarized the nature of complaint of Respondent No.3

and has thereafter quoted provisions of Section 83 of the MCS Act.

Though there are certain observations with regard to payment of excess

Page No.   17   of   21  

25 June  2026

Neeta Sawant                                                                                                                                                 WP-2980 OF 2021   

amount of Rs.80,000/- for housekeeping, distribution of amounts

amongst members of managing committee, withdrawal of large amounts

etc, paying amounts to NGO, destruction of evidence etc., these are not

&#6684777;ndings or prima-facie opinion of the Deputy Registrar. These

observations which begin with the expression ' t1.rp.r C.bu C. l.C.fRC.BC.

Bupsfu./ 8&ून &#154470719;दले आहे की...' (Complainant has brought to the notice of this

of&#6684777;ce that...)

20) Thus, the Deputy Registrar has mainly reproduced the

contents of complaint of Respondent No.3. There appears to be no

recording of independent opinion by the Deputy Registrar. More

importantly, the impugned order does not indicate consideration of any

independent material by the Deputy Registrar while making the order.

He has directed conduct of enquiry solely on the basis of contents of

complaint of Respondent No.3. There is thus no independent application

of mind by the Divisional Registrar as was the case in Janhit Nagari

Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit.

21) Also of relevance is the fact that instead of exercising suo-

moto powers under Section 83 by undertaking independent assessment,

the Registrar has essentially adjudicated the complaint of Respondent

No.3. The Deputy Registrar does not possess adjudicative power under

Section 83 to decide the complaint made by a member. The statutory

scheme is such that if a requisition is made by 1/5

th

members, the Deputy

Registrar has no option but to order inquiry on account of use of the

word 'shall'. However, when members less than 1/5

th

or any outsider or a

Page No.   18   of   21  

25 June  2026

Neeta Sawant                                                                                                                                                 WP-2980 OF 2021   

third person makes a complaint about functioning of the Society, though

the Deputy Registrar is not prevented from taking cognizance of such

complaint for exercise of suo-moto power, he must make independent

assessment of the matter and then proceed to order conduct of enquiry.

Consideration of complaint as a source information for exercise of suo-

moto power is a concept distinct and different from the concept of

adjudicating the complaint and making a decision thereon. Apart from

the fact that the order dated 2 March 2019 shows exercise of adjudicatory

power by the Deputy Registrar, while addressing copy of the order to

Respondent No.3, the Divisional Registrar has made following remark :

३. डॉ. एल.बी. agn.o ,

ची/१८, बी४०२, &#10101919123735;ुलशन &#10101919123735;ोकूळधाम,

W(GMWC1A LEA. FR1iH- ६३

२/- lCG eOC. HV FRfC1B_C erRY1WCrM tN, UC_.AC8H UGU_C pVMVH e0a_CFR?े

pLVC lCG eO. DrUCVH UC\U_C _M p8M. 

22) Thus, copy of the order is also provided to the complainant

after ‘adjudication’ of his complaint. Use of the words ' lCG eO. DrUCVH

UC\U_C _M p8M' leaves no manner of doubt that the Deputy Registrar has

rendered '&#154470719;नकाल' (decision) on the complaint. Section 83 of the MCS Act

does not confer adjudicatory powers on the Deputy Registrar. The

principle recognised by this Court in Janhit Nagari Sahakari Pat Sansth

Maryadit, Pune, Jeevan Niwas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd and

Jayprakash Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Mrt about permissibility

for Deputy Registrar to take cognizance of complaint cannot be

overstretched to mean that Registrar can ‘adjudicate’ such complaint and

render a 'decision' thereon.

Page No.   19   of   21  

25 June  2026

Neeta Sawant                                                                                                                                                 WP-2980 OF 2021   

23) In view of the above discussion, in my view, the Deput y

Registrar has egregiously erred in adjudicating the complaint of

Respondent No.3 in purported exercise of powers under Section 83 of the

MCS Act. The impugned order dated 2 March 2019 does not indicate that

the Deputy Registrar has made any independent assessment of records

made available before him. He has merely reproduced contents of

complaint of Respondent No.3 and has proceeded to order enquiry into

the affairs of the Society. The order of the Deputy Registrar is thus

contrary to the statutory scheme of Section 83 of the MCS Act.

24) There is yet another reason why the order dated 2 Mar ch

2019 deserves to be set aside. The Deputy Registrar had earlier ordered

enquiry into the affairs of the Society in exercise of powers under Section

83 of the Act by passing order dated 13 April 2018. That order was

challenged by the Society before the Divisional Joint Registrar

complaining that enquiry was erroneously ordered acting solely on the

basis of complaint of Respondent No.3. The Divisional Joint Registrar

accepted the objection of the Society and had speci&#6684777;cally held that the

Deputy Registrar had not initiated enquiry under Section 83 suo-moto.

Following &#6684777;ndings recorded by the Divisional Joint Registrar in the order

dated 14 August 2018 are relevant:

Therefore it seems that the Respondent-Deputy Registrar has not

initiated enquiry u/s. 83 on suo-moto or on the application of 1/5th

members of the Society. Therefore the action initiated by the

Respondent-Deputy Registrar against the provisions of Section 83'.

25) Thus, the Divisional Joint Registrar, in previous round of

proceedings, had speci&#6684777;cally recorded a &#6684777;nding that ordering enquiry on

Page No.   20   of   21  

25 June  2026

Neeta Sawant                                                                                                                                                 WP-2980 OF 2021   

the basis of complaint of Respondent No.3 was not suo-moto exercise of

power by the Deputy Registrar. Though not required, the Divisional Joint

Registrar had erroneously remanded the proceedings before the Deputy

Registrar. Since Petitioner-Society did not question correctness of order

of remand, it is not necessary to delve deeper into that aspect. Suf&#6684777;ce, it

to observe that in the remanded proceedings, the Deputy Registrar once

again committed the same folly and acted squarely on the basis of

complaint of Respondent No.3 for ordering enquiry under Section 83.

26) Considering the overall conspectus of the case, in my view,

the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar on 2 March 2019 and by the

Divisional Joint Registrar on 9 March 2020 are indefensible and liable to

be set aside. The petition succeeds partly, and I proceed to pass the

following order :

(i) Order dated 9 March 2020 passed by the Divisional Joint

Registrar dismissing the Revision of the Petitioner is set

aside.

(ii) The Revision is allowed and consequently, Order dated 2

March 2019 passed by the Deputy Registrar under Section

83 of the MCS Act is set aside.

27) The Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. Rule is

made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. The Interim

Application, if any, is also disposed of.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

Page No.   21   of   21  

25 June  2026

NEETA

SHAILESH

SAWANT

Digitally

signed by

NEETA

SHAILESH

SAWANT

Date:

2026.06.25

17:47:43

+0530