IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has the authority to initiate inquiries based on complaints from non-members if they are legal heirs of deceased members, reinforcing the regulatory framework of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

JITENDRA JAIN, J. - Rule. Ms.Solunke, learned AGP for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr.Kapadnis, learned counsel for respondent no.4 waives service of notice. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is heard finally.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of enquiry report dated 22 nd April 2022 issued by respondent no.3-Enquiry Officer.

3. Brief facts are as under :-

(i) The petitioner is a Co-operative Housing Society consisting of 117 members registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'MCS Act'). In 1964, respondent no.1-State allotted land to the petitioner on payment of premium. In 1976, an order was passed for resumption of the said plot on the ground that the petitioner has committed breaches of the various conditions of allotment. The said action of resumption was the subject matter of appeal before the Appellate Authority and an understanding was reached between the petitioner and respondent no.1-State whereby 20 plots were allowed to be retained by the Society and balance 20 plots were to be resumed by respondent no.1-State. On this understanding, the appeal proceedings were disposed of in the year 1981.

(ii) Thereafter, the petitioner constructed buildings on these plots and the petitioner has been sub-classified as tenant co-partnership co- operative housing society. In 2018, the petitioner adopted model bye-laws approved by respondent no.2-Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies. During 2021-22, the authorities of Pune Municipal Corporation visited site of the petitioner and observed illegal construction on the said site. During the period from February 2022 to April 2022, respondent no.2 initiated enquiry on various irregularities and illegalities committed by the petitioner and on 22/4/2022, a report was submitted by respondent no.3-Enquiry Officer to respondent no.2-Deputy Registrar to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

4. It is on this backdrop, the petitioner is before us challenging the said enquiry report.

Submission of the petitioner:-

5. The petitioner submits that against the impugned enquiry report, there is no alternative remedy provided under the MCS Act and therefore, they have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. To support this submission, the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Nagpur Bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Kashinath Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No.3442 of 2015 decided on 15/12/2017. The petitioner further submitted that the impugned enquiry report is prepared without there being any authority under the MCS Act to do so and more particularly on the basis of the complaints made by respondent no.4 who is not a member of the society and therefore, the enquiry report is without jurisdiction. The petitioner for this submission relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Vithalnagar Co- operative Housing Society, Mumbai Vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, CSMD & Ors., 2015 (2) Mh.L.J. 452. and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the petitioner's own case beingWrit Petition No.7442 of 2022 decided on 4/7/2022. The Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.7442 of 2022 has given a finding that respondent no.4 was not a member of the Society. It is the contention of the petitioner that based on his compliant, no proceedings ought to have been taken by respondent no.3 in conducting enquiry. The petitioner further referring to WhatsApp chat submitted that enquiry is conducted not by respondent no.3 but by some other officer who is not authorised. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that the impugned enquiry report dtd. 22/4/2022 be quashed and set aside.

Submission of the respondents:-

6. Per contra, respondent no.4 raised preliminary objection on alternative remedy and further submitted that on account of death of his father, who was a member of the petitioner-Society,