Satyam Narayan Sawant vs the Tahsildar Sawantwadi and Ors.

2. The challenge in this Writ Petition iled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the Order dated 23rd January 2026 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai, by which Revision Application No.97 of 2025 iled by the

¶14

Petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that the Petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 154(2A) of the

¶15

Arjun

¶16

1

¶17

15-WP-1124-2026.doc

¶18

Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 (“ said Act ”). The said provision stipulates that no application for revision shall be entertained against a recovery certiicate issued by the Registrar under Section 101 of the said Act unless the applicant deposits with the concerned Society ifty per cent amount of the total recoverable dues.

¶19

3. Mr. Pawar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that pursuant to the Order dated 12th March 2026 passed by this Court, ifty per cent of the amount has been deposited with Respondent No.5-The Sindhudurg District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.. He, therefore, states that the impugned Order be quashed and set aside and that the said Revision be remanded back to the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai.

¶20

4. On the other hand, Mr. Kinkar, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 and 6, strongly opposes the Petition. He submits that, after giving suicient opportunities the impugned Order has been passed and, therefore, no interference in the impugned Order is warranted. However, he accepts that ifty per cent amount of total recoverable dues have been deposited.

¶21

5. However, perusal of the record shows that by the impugned Order Revision Application No.97 of 2025 iled by the present Petitioner has been dismissed only on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory requirement under Section 154(2A) of the said Act. Since the

¶22

Arjun

¶23

2

¶24

15-WP-1124-2026.doc

¶25

said provision mandates that an applicant iling a Revision under Section 154 must deposit ifty per cent of the amount with the concerned Society, and as this requirement has now been complied with, there is no impediment in entertaining the Revision Application by the Revisional Authority i.e. Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai.

¶26

6. Accordingly, as the said mandatory requirement has now been complied with, the impugned Order dated 23rd January 2026 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai in Revision Application No.97 of 2025 is quashed and set aside and the said Revision Application No.97 of 2025 is restored to the ile of the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai.

¶27

7. In the facts and circumstances, the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai is directed to dispose of the said Revision Application No.97 of 2025 expeditiously on or before 31st December 2026.

¶28

8. The Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶29

9. It is clariied that the contentions of all the parties on merits are expressly kept open.

¶30

[Pravin S. Patil, J.] [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]

¶31

Arjun

¶32

3

Satyam Narayan Sawant v. the Tahsildar Sawantwadi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyam Narayan Sawant v. the Tahsildar Sawantwadi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Elecon Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation of City of Ichalkaranji and Anr.

Shri Chandrashekhar Vidyalay and Narayankaka Aagashe Junior College Shripur vs The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, School, Education and Sport Department

Shri Chandrashekhar Vidyalay and Narayankaka Aagashe Junior College Shripur vs The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, School, Education and Sport Department

Rahimanbi Ibrahim Inamdar vs District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Kolhapur and Others

Kazim Scutiry Group Thro. Its Proprietor S.G. Agsapure vs Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Prakashganga and Ors.

Kiran Prakash Bhide vs the State of Maha. Thr. Sec. School Education and Sports Dept. and Ors.