The Bombay High Court has upheld the disqualification of former office bearers of a Mumbai cooperative housing society after finding that they failed to provide requested society records to a committee member within the time prescribed under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The Court ruled that the authorities were justified in holding the petitioners responsible for violating their statutory duty and declined to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by three authorities.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Shashikant M. Ramane and others, former members of the managing committee of Vaishali Nagar Mahalaxmi Co-operative Housing Society. They challenged orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, the Joint Registrar, and later the State's Minister for Co-operation, which held them disqualified for failing to supply copies of society records sought by another committee member.
The dispute began after respondent No. 4 sought copies of minutes of 13 managing committee meetings held between April 2022 and March 2023, along with the video recording of the Annual General Meeting held on 24 September 2023. Although the requests were accompanied by copying charges, the documents were not supplied within the statutory period of 45 days. Multiple directions issued by the Deputy Registrar also went unheeded, eventually leading to disqualification proceedings.
Petitioners' Stand
The petitioners argued that the respondent was himself a member of the managing committee and therefore already had the right to inspect society records. They contended that the documents had substantially been made available later and that disqualification was an excessively harsh consequence.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
They also claimed that the respondent had refused to accept the documents when they were allegedly offered and argued that merely enclosing cheques with the requests did not amount to payment of copying fees unless the society actually received the money.
Court's Observations
Justice Sandeep V. Marne rejected these submissions after examining the sequence of events and the documentary record.
The Court held that once the respondent enclosed cheques along with his applications, it became the society's responsibility to deposit them. The society could not later argue that fees had not been paid simply because it chose not to encash the cheques.
The bench observed:
“If the society chose not to deposit and encash the cheques, it cannot be contended that the Respondent No. 4 did not pay the copying charges.”
The Court found that the society failed to supply the requested records within the mandatory 45-day period despite repeated reminders from the Deputy Registrar. Instead of directly handing over the documents to the respondent, the committee chose to send them to the Deputy Registrar months later with a request that they be forwarded.
Justice Marne noted that there was no convincing evidence that the respondent had ever refused to accept the requested documents. The Court also observed that the respondent ultimately received the AGM recording after about 263 days and the minutes of the committee meetings after about 377 days from his original requests.
Delay Was Not a Mere Technical Breach
The High Court distinguished the case from situations involving minor procedural delays. It held that the conduct of the petitioners reflected a deliberate failure to comply with their statutory obligations rather than an inadvertent lapse.
The Court observed:
“The case does not involve insignificant delay in supply of the demanded documents. On the other hand, the case involves deliberate refusal to furnish the demanded documents.”
While the Court acknowledged that substantial compliance with the law may, in appropriate cases, prevent disqualification, it found no such compliance in the present matter because the petitioners repeatedly ignored official directions before eventually producing the records.
The Court further noted that transparency in the functioning of cooperative housing societies is the very purpose behind the statutory provisions requiring members to be given access to records.
High Court's Decision
Finding no error in the concurrent conclusions reached by the Deputy Registrar, the Joint Registrar and the Minister for Co-operation, the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The Court held that the petitioners had incurred disqualification under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act for failing to furnish the demanded minutes of the managing committee meetings within the prescribed period. It concluded that there was no ground to interfere with the impugned orders and dismissed the petition without any order as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Shashikant M. Ramane & Ors. v. Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, SRA/MHADA & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 7757 of 2026
Judge: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Decision Date: 1 July 2026
