Dismissed¶¶13

Seema Kashinath More v. Asst. Registrar, Co-Op. Society

Bombay HC23 Feb 2026WP/3960/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of writ petition against private individuals — Bombay HC, W.P. 3960/2025 (Seema Kashinath More v. Asst. Registrar, Co-operative Society & Ors), Gadkari & Khata JJ., 09-03-2026. Private individuals do not fall within Article 12 of the Constitution; mandamus sought against them renders the petition misconceived; filing termed patent abuse of process; dismissed in limine with Rs. 25,000/- costs payable to BCMG's Advocate Academy and Research Center within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

A writ petition against private individuals is ordinarily not maintainable, as such persons do not fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. ¶¶12

Seema Kashinath More vs Asst. Registrar, Co-Op. Society — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

KSG 58-WP-3960-2025(1).doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3960 OF 2025

¶5

Seema Kashinath More … Petitioner

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Asst. Registrar, Co-operative Society & Ors … Respondents

¶8

Mr. D.R. Singh a/w Mr. S.H. Singh i/b R.B. Singh & Associates for the Petitioner.

¶9

Ms. Nazia Sheikh, A.G.P. for Respondent No1-State. Mr. Dharmeshkumar Sandagar for the Respondent No.2. Ms. Kirti J. Hakani for the Respondent No.3.

¶10

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ. DATE : 9^th MARCH 2026

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

It is the settled position of law that a writ petition against private individuals is ordinarily not maintainable, as such persons do not fall within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

¶13

The present Petition is wholly misconceived inasmuch as it seeks reliefs, including a writ of mandamus, against private individuals. In these circumstances, the Petition is not maintainable in writ jurisdiction. In our view, the filing of the present Petition constitutes a patent abuse of the process of law. The Petition is accordingly dismissed in limine with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-.

¶14

1/2

¶15

KSG 58-WP-3960-2025(1).doc

¶16

We therefore direct the Petitioner to pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- to

¶17

Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa’s Advocate Academy and Research Center within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of the present Order on the official website of the High Court of Bombay.

¶18

3.1) Details of the bank Account for payment of cost are as under:-

¶19

Account Name :- BCMG’S Advocate Academy & Research

¶20

Center Account Number :- 000120110001327 Bank Name :- Bank of India Branch Name :- Mumbai Main IFSC Code :- BKID0000001 Type of Account :- Current A/c

¶21

Stand over to 16^th April, 2026, for ‘Reporting compliance of the present Order’.

¶22

Digitally KIRANSANJAYGHUGE signed byKIRANSANJAYGHUGEDate:2026.03.30 17:20:55 +0530

¶23

2/2

Seema Kashinath More v. Asst. Registrar, Co-Op. Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Kashinath More v. Asst. Registrar, Co-Op. Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Beef Dealers Welfare Association through Its Authorized Member, Mr. Raismiya Abdul Aziz Qureshi vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Mumtaz H Khoja vs the Chief Executive Officer, Sra and Anr.

Ramnath Govind Ugalmugle vs the State of Maharashtra Thr District Magistrate and Ors.

Mahavir Pratishthan and Anr. vs the Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shahid Gulam Mustafa Surme vs State of Maharashtra

Dattatray Janardan Rajgire vs the Divisional Joint Registrar Co. Op. Soc. Pune and Ors.