A co-operative society can challenge membership decisions if it demonstrates legal or financial harm, while individual members have standing to contest eligibility determinations impacting their rights.

JUDGMENT :

1. Both these Petitions lay a challenge to the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority, in the purported exercise of powers under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), whereby the Revisional Authority has set aside the order previously passed under Section 11 of the said Act.

2. The genesis of the present dispute, as pleaded, traces back to the enrollment of one hundred and forty-three (143) members in the year 2010. According to the Petitioners, these memberships were granted in contravention of the mandatory procedure prescribed under the provisions of the said Act, the Rules framed thereunder, as well as the Bye-laws of the society. It is alleged that neither were the statutory conditions for eligibility satisfied, nor was there due scrutiny of the proposed members’ credentials, particularly on the crucial aspects of their residence within the area of operation of the society and the requirement that they be carrying on business, as mandated under the Bye-laws. The Petitioners contend that this irregular enrollment of members is the bedrock of the subsequent disputes and proceedings.

3. Consequent upon an inquiry under Section 89A of the said Act, a further inquiry under Section 11 of the said Act was undertaken. The Registrar, while exercising powers under Section 11 of the said Act, recorded a finding that the enrollment of all 143 members was irregular and invalid. The basis for such finding rested on two principal grounds: first, that the meeting convened on 15th April 2010 was held in violation of the provisions of the said Act, the relevant Rules, and the Bye-laws; and secondly, that there was an absolute absence of documentary or evidentiary material to demonstrate the fulfillment of eligibility conditions by the aforementioned 143 members. In pursuance of these findings, the Registrar, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 11 of the said Act, directed the removal of the said 143 members under Section 25 of the said Act.

4. Aggrieved by the Registrar’s order dated 9th September 2019, six of the affected members preferred an Appeal, being Appeal No.7 of 2019. However, by its judgment and order dated 29th April 2024, the Appellate Authority was pleased to dismiss the said appeal. Consequently, five of the aforesaid members instituted Revision Application No.10 of 2024, wherein the Revisional Authority, by the impugned judgment and order, quashed and set aside the Appellate Authority’s decision dated 29th April 2024. It is against this revisional order that the present Writ Petitions have been filed: Writ Petition No.466 of 2025 by the society and Writ Petition No.3437 of 2025 by 40 members of the society. The principal grievance revolves around the legality and propriety of the Revisional Authority’s intervention, as well as the merits of the initial enrollment of the 143 members, which form the focal point of the dispute.

5. Learned advocate for the Petitioners submitted that the authorities constituted under the said Act have rightly recorded a finding that the 143 members in question were ineligible for membership, as there was no material on record to substantiate that the procedure prescribed under the said Act, the Rules framed thereunder, and the Bye-laws of the society was duly followed. It was contended that the fundamental eligibility conditions for membership were not satisfied, and the authorities, upon due consideration of the factual and legal aspects, have rightly concluded that the said members could not have been enrolled. The learned advocate submitted that the Revisional Authority has erroneously placed reliance on a solitary certificate purportedly issued by the Sarpanch of the concerned village, which merely indicated that the said 143 persons resided within the area of operation of the society and were engaged in business activities. He submitted that such reliance was wholly impermissible, inasmuch as the