Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Rushabh Vidyarthi, Shaswat Vidyarthi, Parth Parikh, Hakim Salim A.R.
For the Respondents: C.D. Mali, Saurabh Vivek Patil.

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The case pertains to the disqualification of elected committee members of a cooperative housing society under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, specifically for default in furnishing requested documents within the prescribed time limit (!) (!) .

2. The relevant provisions establish that members of the society have the right to inspect and request copies of certain documents, and the society is obliged to furnish these documents within 45 days of the request. Failure to do so can lead to disqualification of the committee members involved (!) (!) .

3. The disqualification applies to committee members who are responsible for the default, especially if they have been held responsible under specific sections of the Act, including those related to the default in furnishing documents (!) (!) .

4. The legislation emphasizes that the time limit of 45 days is a critical procedural requirement. While the use of the word "shall" might suggest mandatory compliance, the courts have interpreted such provisions as potentially directory, especially when substantial compliance is achieved and no prejudice is caused (!) (!) (!) (!) .

5. The doctrine of "substantial compliance" is applicable, meaning that if a party has done all that is reasonably possible within its control to comply with the requirement, minor infractions should not result in severe penalties like disqualification. This approach promotes fairness and the democratic principles underlying cooperative societies (!) (!) (!) .

6. In this case, the evidence indicated that the society made bona fide efforts to furnish the documents, but these efforts were not completed within the 45-day period. The delay was due to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioners, such as respondent No. 3 not residing in the flats and the society's communication issues (!) (!) (!) (!) .

7. The authorities below found that there was no intentional withholding of documents and that the delay was not indicative of mala fide intent. The delay was considered a procedural lapse rather than a deliberate act, and the order of disqualification was challenged on this basis (!) (!) .

8. The court recognized that while the provisions are strict, the requirement of compliance should be viewed in the context of the overall legislative aim, which is to promote transparency and good governance in cooperative societies. The disqualification should not be imposed for minor procedural lapses if substantial compliance is demonstrated (!) (!) .

9. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, affirming that the authorities' decision was justified given the failure to furnish the documents within the stipulated period, and that the order of disqualification was valid and proportionate to the default committed (!) (!) (!) .

10. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines but also recognizes the principles of fairness and the need to interpret statutory provisions in a manner that furthers legislative intent and democratic functioning of cooperative societies.