Panditrao Munjajirao Chokhat vs Divisional Joint Registrar Co. Op Societies and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Panditrao Munjajirao Chokhat vs Divisional Joint Registrar Co. Op Societies and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition rejected with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate reply to the impugned show-cause notice; any adverse order subsequently passed shall be kept in abeyance for two weeks after it is passed.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.1 had authority to issue the notice dated 17.02.2026 invoking Section 73(CA)(1)(f)(iii) and Section 73(CA)(1)(f)(iv) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and whether the writ petition against that notice should be entertained at this stage. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the petitioner has merely been served with a show-cause notice and it remains open to him to file a reply, there is no reason to entertain the present writ petition.

Ratio / Principle

All contentions raised in the writ petition may be considered by the concerned Authority, which may pass appropriate orders.

Key takeaways

By way of limited protection, in the event any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, such order shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks thereafter.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition challenging a show-cause notice dated 17.02.2026 issued by respondent No.1, Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhatrapati Sambhajiagar, invoking Section 73(CA)(1)(f)(iii) and Section 73(CA)(1)(f)(iv) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, on the ground that the respondents lacked authority to issue it, particularly since the registration of the society represented by the petitioner (a Director of respondent No.2, PDCC Bank) stood cancelled: HELD, the petitioner having merely been served with a show-cause notice and it remaining open to him to file a reply, there is no reason to entertain the writ petition; all contentions may be considered by the concerned Authority, which may pass appropriate orders. Considering counsel's apprehension that the notice may be used as a political foundation against the petitioner, limited protection was granted: the writ petition stands rejected with liberty to file an appropriate reply, and in the event any adverse order is passed, such order shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks thereafter.

wp 2893.26.odt

2026:BHC-AUG:12076

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

932 WRIT PETITION NO. 2893 OF 2026

Panditrao Munjajirao Chokhat VERSUS

Divisional Joint Registrar Co-Op Societies And Another

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.M.P. Tripathi AGP for Respondents: Mr. S.D. Ghayal Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr.S.S.Gangakhedkar

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. Dated : March 17, 2026

PER COURT :-

The petitioner raises an exception to the notice dated 17.02.2026 issued by respondent No.1–Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhatrapati Sambhajiagar purportedly invoking the provisions under Section 73(CA)(1) (f)(iii) and Section 73(CA)(1)(f)(iv) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner was elected as a Director of Sarangpur Shetkari Dhanya Adhikosh (Godam) Seva Co-Op. Society, Limited, Sarangpur, Tq. Manvat, Dist. Parbhani. Subsequently, he was elected as the Director of respondent No. 2 – PDCC

2

wp 2893.26.odt

Bank. The petitioner has been served with the impugned notice issued by respondent No. 1. According to Mr. Tripathi, the respondents lack the authority to issue such a notice by invoking provisions of Section 73(CA)(1)(f)(iii) and Section 73(CA)(1)(f)(iv) of the Act of 1960. The notice itself purportedly holds the petitioner disqualified and calls for an explanation as to why he should not be removed from the post of Director. He further submits that merely because the registration of Society he represents has been cancelled, the action contemplated under Section 73(CA) of the Act cannot be initiated.

3. This Court finds that the petitioner has merely been

served with a show-cause notice. It remains open for the petitioner to file a reply to the said notice. All contentions raised in this writ petition may be considered by the concerned Authority and appropriate orders may be passed. Therefore, there is no reason to entertain the present writ petition. However, at this stage, Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is an apprehension that the aforesaid notice will be used as a political foundation against the petitioner and that there is every likelihood of an order being passed under political influence.

wp 2893.26.odt

3

Considering aforesaid contention, this Court finds that petitioner can be granted limited protection in the event an adverse order is passed against him.

In that view of the matter, writ petition stands rejected with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate reply to the impugned show-cause notice. However, in the event any adverse order is passed, such order shall be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks thereafter.

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

AAA/-