Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 04.11.2026
Bombay High Court: Registrars Must Not Mechanically Disqualify Society Committee Members
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her mob no- +91 8726929060 and email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .
The Bombay High Court has ruled that a cooperative housing society office-bearer cannot be disqualified automatically for failing to supply records: the Registrar must first assess whether the refusal was deliberate, unjustified, and serious enough to warrant that consequence.
Background of the dispute
The case arose from Ishan Co-operative Housing Society in Wakad, Pune, whose land and membership history had been subject to prolonged disputes. Several plot allottees, including Ramdas Baban Kate and Dhanraj Charansingh Birda, were recognised as deemed members through orders passed under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
After an administrator-led election in November 2021, Kate became Chairman of the society. Within two weeks, Birda sought copies of election-related records, meeting minutes, membership registers, audit reports, and other society documents. He enclosed Rs. 1,000 and offered to pay additional copying charges.
The society, through its Chairman, declined the request. The stated reason was that Birda was not considered a society member at that time. The Deputy Registrar had directed the society to provide the documents, but the refusal continued.
The disqualification orders
Birda initiated proceedings under Section 154B-23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The Deputy Registrar initially disqualified Kate for five years in July 2022. That decision was remanded in revision, but the Deputy Registrar again imposed a five-year disqualification in January 2023. The Divisional Joint Registrar upheld it in October 2023.
The disqualification was based on Section 154B-8(2), which requires a society to provide members with copies of specified records on a written request and payment of the prescribed fees. Section 154B-23 provides for disqualification where a committee member is held responsible for violating that obligation.
The High Court stayed the disqualification in March 2025 and ultimately heard the matter finally instead of deciding a later application seeking vacation of the stay.
The key legal issue: Is disqualification automatic?
The Court held that it is not. While the statute makes the consequences of a validly established disqualification mandatory, it does not require the Registrar to mechanically declare a committee member disqualified whenever documents have not been supplied.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne explained that the Registrar must conduct a fact-specific assessment of whether the concerned office-bearer should actually be held responsible for the failure under Section 154B-8(2). This requires consideration of the nature of the breach, the reasons for non-compliance, the duration of the default, its effect on transparency, and whether there was any deliberate attempt to conceal wrongdoing or misuse authority.
The Court stressed that Sections 154B-8 and 154B-23 are intended to secure transparency in housing societies, not to remove elected committee members for every technical lapse. A five-year bar is a serious civil consequence, particularly because it may exceed the normal tenure of a managing committee.
Why the Chairmanβs refusal was treated differently
Although Kate had refused to provide the requested records, the Court found that the circumstances did not establish a deliberate or mala fide denial.
An earlier auditor and administrator had prepared a membership list for the 2021 election that excluded 52 persons who had allegedly not paid amounts toward their lease plots. Birda was among the persons excluded. When the newly elected committee received his request, it had not yet obtained all society records. The Chairman relied on the administratorβs report and the election-related membership list in believing that Birda was not entitled to seek the documents as a member.
The Court noted that both Kate and Birda had earlier secured deemed membership under common orders. However, the later administrative records had created a genuine doubt about Birdaβs membership status. The Court therefore concluded that the refusal was based on a belief formed from the available records, rather than an oblique motive to withhold information.
The requested documents were also supplied later. In these unusual circumstances, the Court held that the Chairmanβs conduct did not amount to a deliberate violation warranting disqualification.
Principles clarified by the judgment
The ruling reinforces several important standards for cooperative housing societies and Registrars:
- Members have a statutory right to records. Societies must ordinarily provide the documents listed in Section 154B-8(1), including minutes, audited financial statements, committee-member lists, and membership registers.
- The right supports transparency. Withholding records to hide financial irregularities, misuse of power, or significant committee decisions can justify strict action.
- A breach alone is not decisive. The Registrar must determine whether the office-bearer is truly responsible for the default and whether it was intentional, unjustified, or harmful.
- Context matters. Genuine uncertainty, prompt corrective conduct, and substantial compliance may weigh against disqualification.
- Sanctions must be proportionate. A five-year disqualification should reflect the seriousness of the misconduct and cannot be imposed mechanically for a minor or technical lapse.
The Court distinguished cases in which society committees had deliberately withheld records despite repeated requests and official directions. In those matters, the refusal indicated disregard for transparency and justified disqualification. Here, the evidence did not show a comparable attempt to conceal wrongdoing.
Final outcome
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside both the Deputy Registrarβs order dated 30 January 2023 and the Divisional Joint Registrarβs order dated 12 October 2023. Kateβs five-year disqualification was therefore cancelled, and the related interim application was disposed of.
The judgment confirms that transparency obligations in cooperative housing societies are enforceable, but the power to disqualify elected committee members must be exercised with careful, evidence-based, and proportionate consideration of the actual circumstances.
Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel
Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.
Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.
Source: Bombay High Court
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707
Leave a Reply