The Bombay High Court, sitting through Justice Sandeep V. Marne, dismissed a writ petition challenging the concurrent orders of the Deputy Registrar, the Joint Registrar and the Minister (Co‑operation) that disqualified the petitioners under Section 154B‑23(1)(iii) of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioners were members of the managing committee of a co‑operative housing society.
The dispute originated when another elected committee member applied for copies of the minutes of thirteen managing committee meetings held between April 2022 and March 2023, together with the video recording of the Annual General Meeting held on 24 September 2023. The applicant enclosed cheques towards copying costs and made repeated requests for the documents. The society did not furnish the requested material within the forty‑five day period prescribed by Section 154B‑8(2) of the Act.
Proceedings were initiated before the Deputy Registrar, who issued directions to produce the documents. Despite those directions, the petitioners continued to withhold the minutes of the managing committee meetings. The Court observed that the statutory period commenced as soon as the respondent submitted the written application accompanied by the cheques for copying charges, and that the society could not evade its obligation by refusing to encash the cheques.
The petitioners advanced several arguments in their defence. They contended that the respondent, being a member of the managing committee, was already entitled to inspect the records and had sought the documents solely to secure their disqualification. They asserted that the documents had eventually been supplied, that there had been substantial compliance with the statutory requirement, and that the power to order disqualification ought to be exercised sparingly.
Justice Sandeep V. Marne rejected these submissions. The Court held that once the applicant had lodged the written application together with the cheques, the statutory timeline began to run. The society’s failure to encash the cheques did not toll the period. The record showed that the petitioners did not furnish the minutes of the managing committee meetings within the forty‑five day window and persisted in withholding them even after repeated communications and directions from the Deputy Registrar.
The Court found no material to support the petitioners’ claim that the respondent had refused to accept the documents. The only evidence on record indicated that the documents were ultimately made available through the Deputy Registrar after considerable delay. Consequently, the delay was not a minor or technical lapse but a deliberate refusal to comply with the statutory duty.
Referring to the legislative purpose of Section 154B‑8, the Court emphasised that the provision aims to ensure transparency in the functioning of co‑operative societies. Disqualification under Section 154B‑23(1)(iii) follows only after the Registrar determines responsibility for the default. While acknowledging that substantial compliance may, in an appropriate case, protect a committee member from disqualification, the Court held that the present case involved a willful refusal to furnish documents, not a mere technical delay.
The Court also noted that although the video recording of the Annual General Meeting was not one of the documents enumerated under Section 154B‑8(1), the minutes of the managing committee meetings clearly fell within the ambit of that provision. Their non‑supply therefore attracted the consequences prescribed by Section 154B‑23(1)(iii).
Having considered the concurrent findings of the Deputy Registrar, the Joint Registrar and the Minister (Co‑operation), Justice Sandeep V. Marne found no reason to interfere with those orders. The writ petition was dismissed, and the disqualification of the petitioners was upheld.
The decision reinforces the obligation of co‑operative housing societies to provide requested records within the statutory period and clarifies that a deliberate refusal to do so, even if the documents are eventually supplied after delay, will attract disqualification of the responsible office‑bearers under the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960.