Allowed¶24

Ramchandra Bhimrao Valatkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Sec. Dept. of Co-Operation and Ors.

Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 – Sections 77A and 152 – Maintainability of appeal

Bombay HC13 Jan 2026WP/12444/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Locus of cooperative society to appeal under Section 152 against Section 77A order concerning managing committee; 'person aggrieved' requires direct legal prejudice; managing committee distinct from society as corporate body; appeal by society without jurisdiction; defect goes to root, not mere irregularity; Bombay High Court, Amit Borkar, J.; writ petition allowed; Appeal No.186 of 2025 order dated 4 July 2025 quashed.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 4 July 2025 passed in Appeal No.186 of 2025 quashed and set aside; no order as to costs. ¶24

Ramchandra Bhimrao Valatkar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Sec. Dept. of Co-Operation and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Order dated 4 July 2025 passed in Appeal No.186 of 2025 quashed and set aside; no order as to costs.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the society could at all maintain an appeal under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 against an order passed under Section 77A concerning the managing committee, i.e., whether the society is a person aggrieved with locus to appeal. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

Section 77A operates directly against the individuals who form the managing committee; the order does not punish the society as a legal body, and the persons aggrieved in law are the committee members who lose their office.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

A managing committee acts for the society but is not the society itself; the society as a corporate body cannot claim injury merely because the State removes its office bearers for statutory reasons.

¶18

Key takeaways

The right of appeal under Section 152 is available only to a person aggrieved, which requires showing direct legal prejudice; remote dissatisfaction is not enough.ratio¶19
The committee members, not the society, were the persons affected by the Section 77A order; the appellate authority overlooked this basic requirement of locus, and entertaining the society's appeal itself was without jurisdiction.ratio¶19
An authority cannot exercise appellate power unless the appeal is competent in law; the defect goes to the root and is not a mere irregularity, and therefore the order passed by respondent No.2 cannot survive.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 — Sections 77A and 152 — Maintainability of appeal — Order under Section 77A removing/interfering with the managing committee operates directly against the individual committee members and does not punish the society as a corporate body — A managing committee acts for the society but is not the society itself — The society is not a person aggrieved and cannot maintain an appeal under Section 152 against a Section 77A order; the right of appeal belongs to the committee members who lose office — Appellate authority (respondent No.2) entertained the society's appeal without jurisdiction; the defect goes to the root — Impugned order dated 4 July 2025 in Appeal No.186 of 2025 quashed and set aside — Writ petition allowed, no order as to costs.

¶1

15-wp12444-2025.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.12444 OF 2025

¶5

ATUL

¶6

Ramchandra Bhimrao Valatkar & Ors. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

GANESH

¶8

KULKARNI

¶9

Digitally signed by ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2026.02.17 14:50:11 +0530

¶10

Mr. G.N. Salunke with Mr. P.A. Pol and Mr. Ranjit S. Hatkar i/by Pol Legal Juris for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. B.V. Samant, Additional G.P with Smt. P.V. Gavhane, AGP for State.

¶12

Mr. Shantanu Raktate for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

¶13

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 17, 2026

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

The present writ petition questions the legality of the order passed by respondent No.2 under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The background needs brief clarity. The Additional Registrar had earlier exercised power under Section 77A of the Act and passed an order concerning the managing committee of the society. Instead of the affected committee members approaching the appellate authority, the society itself preferred an appeal. Respondent No.2 entertained that appeal and interfered with the Section 77A order. The dispute in this petition therefore is not about factual correctness of the action under Section 77A. The real issue is whether the society could at all maintain such an appeal.

¶16

¶17

15-wp12444-2025.doc

¶18

Section 77A gives power to the Registrar to remove the managing committee and appoint an authorised officer to run the affairs of the society. This provision operates directly against the individuals who form the committee. It is a supervisory power over the office bearers. The order does not punish the society as a legal body. The society continues to exist. Its registration does not suffer. Its property does not vest in the Government. Only the persons managing it are replaced. Therefore the persons aggrieved in law are the committee members who lose their office. The society as a corporate body cannot claim injury merely because the State removes its office bearers for statutory reasons. The Act consciously treats the committee and the society differently. A managing committee acts for the society but is not the society itself.

¶19

The right of appeal under Section 152 is available only to a person aggrieved. The phrase “person aggrieved” has a definite legal meaning. One must show direct legal prejudice. A remote dissatisfaction is not enough. Here, the committee members were the persons affected. If they believed the action illegal, they could challenge it. Instead, the society filed the appeal. Such a course defeats the scheme of Section 77A. Otherwise every order removing a committee would automatically be challenged by the society in its own name and the statutory control would become meaningless. The appellate authority overlooked this basic requirement of locus. Entertaining the appeal itself was without jurisdiction.

¶20

¶21

15-wp12444-2025.doc

¶22

Once it is held that the appeal was not maintainable at the instance of the society, the order passed by respondent No.2 cannot survive. An authority cannot exercise appellate power unless the appeal is competent in law. The defect goes to the root. It is not a mere irregularity.

¶23

Therefore, the order dated 4 July 2025 passed in Appeal No.186 of 2025 is quashed and set aside.

¶24

The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms.

¶25

No order as to costs.

¶26

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶27

Ramchandra Bhimrao Valatkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Sec. Dept. of Co-Operation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramchandra Bhimrao Valatkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Sec. Dept. of Co-Operation 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

Bagasarwala Property LLP vs the Joint Charity Commissioner and Ors.

M/S. G. K. Developers through Its Partner and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Minister of Co-Operative and Ors.

Behram Bomanji Dubash vs Parkons

Fatima Bi Sarbuddin and Anr. vs Parijat O-Op Credit Society Ltd. and Ors.

The Executive Engineer, Raigad vs Shri. Sudhakar Rajaram Sutar and Ors.

Kartik Regency Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. vs the State of Maharashtra Thru. Co. Op. Dept. and Ors.