IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ALOK ARADHE, C.J., BHARATI DANGRE, J.
T.S. Natrajan - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3828 of 2024
Decided On : 06-02-2025
(A) Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 - Section 4 - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Sections 81(1)(f), 81(3)(c), 81(6), 88 - Writ Petition challenging Government Resolution and Circular regarding audit fees and re-audit limitations - Petitioner, a member of the society, sought re-audit for financial years 2014-2015 to 2017-2018, denied due to Circular restricting re-audit to five years - Court found no merit in the Petitioner's claims, emphasizing the society's autonomy and the necessity for the Petitioner to comply with audit fee requirements. (Paras 1-16)
(B) Audit Procedures - The court reiterated that the audit fee for re-audit must be borne by the member requesting it, as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and relevant Circulars. (Paras 8, 11, 14)
(C) Locus Standi - The court questioned the Petitioner's standing to challenge the audit reports when the society itself had not raised any grievances. (Paras 9, 10)
(D) Discrimination Claims - The court dismissed claims of discrimination regarding audit fees, affirming that the regulations apply uniformly to all members. (Paras 8, 12) (E) Final Decision - The Petition was dismissed for lack of merit, with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
(BHARATI DANGRE, J.) :
1. The present Writ Petition is filed by a member of the Respondent No.4 – Splendor Complex Co-Operative Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Mumbai, on being aggrieved by the Government Resolution dated 29.10.2014 as well as the Circular dated 14.12.2015 issued by the Respondent No.2. The Petitioner also seek issuance of writ in nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 to do all such acts, deeds, matters and things as may be required, in accordance with law upon her appointment to carry out re-audit as per the Order dated 10.11.2023 of the Respondent No.4 – Society, for the period of 2014-2015 to 2017-2018, and by way of an alternative prayer it is prayed that test audit shall be conducted instead of re-audit for the year 2018-2019, 2020-2021, 2021-2022.
2. We have heard the learned counsel Mr. Mohit Bhardwaj for the Petitioner and the learned Addl.G.P. Ms. Prachi Tatake, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Advocate Mr. Ajit Anekar a/w Ms. Ashlesha Modak has represented the Respondent No.4.
By consent of the respective counsel representing the parties, we issue Rule and by making it returnable forthwith, we have taken up the Petition for final hearing.
3. The Petitioner claim to be the first purchaser of the flat through an agreement under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flat Act, 1963, (for short “the MOFA”) and assert that he became a member of the co-operative housing society i.e. the Respondent No.4 and though he has attempted to project before us that he has no grievance against the society but on reading of the pleadings, we find this statement to be completely incorrect and we would be justifying our conclusion to the aforesaid effect as we proceed to deal with the Petition.
4. The Petitioner has specifically pleaded that he being the owner of the flat and member of the Respondent No.4 was regular in payment of bills of the society, related to his shares and he was never a defaulter, but despite this, he was denied services by the society. When the society approached the Registrar, it was refused a recovery certificate under Section 154-B against the Petitioner on 28.09.2021.
Narrating that since the services were denied to him, he was constrained to file a Consumer Case bearing No.CC/84/2024 to recover the amount that he has paid to the society but denied the services, he has pleaded that the society make frivolous claims against him, which has no merit and substance.
5. The Petitioner has pleaded his locus to file this proceedings by referring to himself as “alert member”, who gained knowledge about huge level of misappropriation of money by the managing committee of the society and since the society did not budge to his request, he obtained specific directions for conduct of the audit by the statutory auditor for the year 2020-2021.
However, on perusal of the audit report of the financial year 2020-2021 submitted by the Chartered Accountant Mr. Priyesh Khirad, he noted serious lapses and the Petitioner as a member issued notice to the auditor requesting him to make the necessary changes but since there was no response, he preferred a representation to the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, and also provided him the necessary material in support of his claim that it is necessary to conduct a re-audit of the society from the financial year 2014-2015 to 2021-2022.
A summary of the factual statement justifying the re-audit or test audit of the society is annexed to the Petition as Exh-A and under various heads, several objections are flagged by the Petitioner alongwith his comments, where he alleged that the auditor had failed to verify report about the AGMs held and the decision taken therein and also as to how the accounts of the bank were operated despite the fact that it was frozen.
6. The Respondent No.3 on 10.11.2023 appointed an auditor to carry out re-audit of the society for the year 2018- 2019, 2020-2021, 2021-2022 by appointing Smt. Manisha Patil (Auditor Class-I) as an auditor
The court upheld that a member requesting a re-audit must bear the associated fees, affirming the society's autonomy and the validity of the Circular limiting re-audit to five years.
Findings in re-audit reports under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act do not constitute a 'decision' or 'order' and are not subject to revision under Section 154.
The Registrar has the discretion to order an inquiry into the affairs of a society based on a complaint by a non-member, as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960.
The impugned order granting 15 days to submit rectification of defects was not violative of Section 82, and an opportunity of rectification under Section 82 is not a condition precedent for ordering ....
The power under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can only be invoked during an inquiry, investigation, or trial, not during preliminary verification.
Special Report under Section 81(5B) and order directing Section 88 inquiry are preliminary administrative steps, not orders/decisions affecting rights, hence not amenable to revision under Section 15....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.