Allowed¶6

Ragvilas Co. Op Housing Soc Ltd. Thr Its Chairman and Secretary v. State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Apr 2025WP/1168/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960, Section 22(2); refusal of membership by cooperative housing society; Bye law restricting membership to employees of the Corporation approved by Registrar remains in force and binds society and authorities until set aside by competent authority; respondent No. 4's appeal before Divisional Joint Registrar challenging validity of Bye law pending; writ petition allowed, rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a); Bombay High Court, Amit Borkar J., WRIT PETITION NO.1168 OF 2024, dated November 10, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) ¶6

Ragvilas Co. Op Housing Soc Ltd. Thr Its Chairman and Secretary vs State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a)

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the authority under Section 22(2) could ignore the existing Bye law restricting membership to employees of the Corporation and compel the society to grant membership to respondent No. 4.

¶2

Court's answer

The Bye law approved by the Registrar remains in force; a cooperative society is governed by its Bye laws, which bind both the members and the authorities unless held contrary to the Act or Rules, and unless a competent authority sets aside the Bye law the society has no legal power to act against it.

¶4

Ratio / Principle

As long as the Bye law restricting membership to employees of the Corporation stands, the society cannot admit respondent No. 4, who is not an employee of the Corporation.

¶4

Key takeaways

The refusal by the society based on the existing Bye law cannot be faulted.ratio¶5
If the authorities under the Act later decide that the Bye law is invalid and violates the Act or the Rules, respondent No. 4 will be free to renew his claim for membership, and the society will then have to consider his application afresh and admit him as a member; at present no such finding exists.obiter¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Amit Borkar, J.; decision dated November 10, 2025) in Writ Petition No. 1168 of 2024. Ragvilas Coop. Housing Society Ltd. challenged an order passed under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, by which the authority had rejected the society's refusal to grant membership to respondent No. 4, who is not an employee of the Corporation. Held: the Bye law approved by the Registrar, permitting only employees of the Corporation to become members, remains in force; a cooperative society is governed by its Bye laws, which bind both the members and the authorities unless held contrary to the Act or Rules, and unless a competent authority sets the Bye law aside the society has no legal power to act against it. Accordingly, while the Bye law stands the society cannot admit respondent No. 4, and its refusal based on the existing Bye law cannot be faulted. The validity of the Bye law is separately under challenge in an appeal by respondent No. 4 before the Divisional Joint Registrar, which is pending; the Court clarified that if the Bye law is later held invalid, respondent No. 4 may renew his membership claim and the society must then consider his application afresh. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶1

46-wp1168-2024.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1168 OF 2024

¶5

Ragvilas Coop. Housing Society Ltd., through it’s Chairman & Secretary … Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

ATUL

¶7

Mr. Rahul S. Kadam for the petitioner.

¶8

GANESH

¶9

KULKARNI

¶10

Digitally signed by ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2025.11.10 20:01:31 +0530

¶11

Mrs. M.S. Srivastava, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3- State.

¶12

Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil with Mr. Harsh Rathod i/by Mr. Yogesh Thorat for respondent No.4.

¶13

Mr. D.D. Shinde for respondent No.5.

¶14

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶15

DATED : NOVEMBER 10, 2025

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

Rule . Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶18

The petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order passed under Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The dispute relates to the refusal by the petitioner society to grant membership to respondent No. 4. The society has relied on its Bye law, which states that only employees of the Corporation can become members. Respondent No. 4 is not an employee of the Corporation. Therefore, the society refused his request. The authority under Section 22(2) did not accept this stand of the society and rejected the refusal. This order is under

¶19

¶20

46-wp1168-2024.doc

¶21

challenge. The issue before the Court is limited. Whether the authority could ignore the existing Bye law and compel the society to grant membership when the Bye law clearly restricts membership only to employees of the Corporation.

¶22

The record shows that respondent No. 4 has filed an appeal before the Divisional Joint Registrar. In that appeal he has challenged the validity of the Bye law itself. Respondent No. 4 claims that the Bye law imposing the condition of employment with the Corporation is illegal. The appellate authority has not yet decided this challenge. The question of the validity of the Bye law is therefore pending.

¶23

At present the position is clear. The Bye law approved by the Registrar remains in force. It permits only employees of the Corporation to become members. Respondent No. 4 is not an employee of the Corporation. Hence, as long as the Bye law stands, the society cannot admit respondent No. 4 as a member. A cooperative society is governed by its Bye laws. These Bye laws bind both the members and the authorities unless they are held to be contrary to the Act or Rules. Unless a competent authority sets aside the Bye law, the society has no legal power to act against it.

¶24

If the authorities under the Act later decide that the Bye law is invalid and hold that it violates the Act or the Rules, respondent No. 4 will be free to renew his claim for membership. If that situation arises, the society will have to consider his application afresh and admit him as a member, because the earlier bar will no longer exist. At this stage, however, no such finding exists.

¶25

¶26

46-wp1168-2024.doc

¶27

Therefore, the refusal by the society based on the existing Bye law cannot be faulted.

¶28