Refusal To Furnish Society Records To Members Leads To Disqualification Of Committee Members: Bombay HC

Emphasizing transparency in the administration of co-operative housing societies, the Bombay High Court upheld the disqualification of managing committee members for failing to provide requisitioned documents to a fellow member.The court underscored that the statutory obligation to furnish society records within the prescribed timeline is mandatory to ensure affairs are conducted transparently.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne, presiding over the matter, dismissed a challenge against concurrent findings of three authorities that had disqualified the petitioners for violating their duties under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The court noted that the petitioners deliberately avoided supplying documents despite multiple interventions by the Deputy Registrar, thereby justifying the harsh penalty of disqualification and a five-year ban from holding office.

The Mandate of Transparency Under MCS Act

The Court's decision centered on the interpretation of Section 154B-8(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which mandates that a society must furnish requested documents to a member within 45 days of payment of fees. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The legislative object discernible in obligating the society to furnish the copies of the documents, as noted above, cannot be lost sight of. The legislature has in addition to employing the word “shall” prescribed the consequence of disqualification for non-compliance of the mandate contained in Section 154B-8(2) of the Act. The prescription of the penalty of disqualification to continue to be a member of the committee... underscores the anxiety of the legislature in ensuring the enforcement of the duty cast on the society."

Failure to Comply with Statutory Timelines

The Bench found that the petitioners, who held positions as Chairman, Secretary, and Treasurer, had not only ignored the initial request from a committee member (Respondent No. 4) but also disregarded subsequent directives from the Deputy Registrar. Even though the petitioners eventually submitted documents to the Registrar's office, the Court held this did not constitute substantial compliance as it occurred after a significant delay of several hundred days.

Regarding the importance of these provisions, the Court referred to the principles laid down in Shahid Tamboli and Ors. vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, highlighting that while substantial compliance might save a member from disqualification in some cases, deliberate refusal or insignificant delay would not be excused.

Court Directions

The Court has the following directions:

"Considering the overall conspectus of the case, I do not find any valid reason to interfere in concurrent findings recorded by three authorities in the impugned orders. Writ Petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs."

Background:

The dispute originated within the Vaishali Nagar Mahalaxmi Co-operative Housing Society Limited. In October 2023, Respondent No. 4, a member of the managing committee, requested minutes of meetings and video recordings of the Annual General Meeting, alleging he was excluded from several sessions. Despite sending cheques for copying fees, the documents were not provided.

Following a complaint on the Government portal, the Deputy Registrar issued multiple directions (dated 20 November 2023 and 19 December 2023) to the society. When the petitioners failed to comply, proceedings were initiated under Section 154B-23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Deputy Registrar disqualified the petitioners on 6 May 2025 and debarred them from being committee members for five years. This order was largely upheld by the Joint Registrar and subsequently by the Hon’ble Minister (Co-operation) in revision.

The petitioners argued that the action was too harsh and that the documents were eventually supplied. They relied on Kailash Maheshwari and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. to argue that disqualification is discretionary. However, the High Court distinguished that precedent, noting it applied to Section 75 and not to the specific disqualification regime under Section 154B-23. The Court concluded that the petitioners showed total disregard for the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and that their conduct did not warrant any discretionary relief.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 7757 OF 2026
Case Title: Shashikant M. Ramane and Ors. V/s. Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, SRA/MHADA and Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Aseem Naphade with Mr. Sanjeel Kadam, Ms. Sayalee Rajpurkar i/b M/s. Kadam & Co.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tejas Deshmukh with Mr. Ronak M. Utagikar and Mr. Shubham Lolge for Respondent No.4; Ms. S. D. Chipade, AGP for Respondent-State.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 262