Removal of a managing committee under Section 78A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act requires clear evidence of misconduct and proper procedural compliance.

JUDGMENT:

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. The petitioner questions the legality of the order dated 26 August 2025 passed by respondent No.2 in Appeal No.39 of 2025. Respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 13 February 2025 passed by respondent No.3. By this order, respondent No.3 removed the managing committee of the petitioner housing society and appointed an Administrator to handle the day-to-day affairs of the society.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows. The petitioner is a cooperative housing society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act , 1960. In the General Body Meeting held on 26 June 2022, the members decided to undertake repair and painting of the building due to its deteriorated condition. The General Body passed a resolution that each member shall contribute Rs.10,000 per month for five or ten months. In the Special General Body Meeting held on 14 August 2022, the Structural Auditor appointed by the society gave a presentation on the nature of repairs and estimated expenses. The members then resolved that each member would make equal interim contributions and that after completion of the repair work, the final contribution amount would be recalculated.

3. On the complaint of respondent Nos.4 and 5, respondent No.3 issued a letter dated 6 June 2024 directing the society to provide records to respondent Nos.4 and 5 and to collect maintenance strictly as per Bye law No.67. On 8 July 2024, respondent No.3 appointed an advocate as an Authorized Officer to ensure compliance with the earlier direction. Based on his report, respondent No.3 issued a letter dated 26 August 2024 to the Executive Magistrate, Panvel. The petitioner then sent a letter dated 12 September 2024 to the Authorized Officer and submitted the documents demanded by respondent No.3. The Authorized Officer gave his report dated 15 October 2024 stating that the society was not functioning as per the Bye laws and the provisions of the Act.

4. Relying on that report, respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice dated 28 November 2024 asking the petitioner to explain why an Administrator should not be appointed. The petitioner submitted its reply on 4 February 2025 explaining that the society had complied with the Act and all directions. Despite this reply, respondent No.3 passed an order on 13 February 2025 removing the entire managing committee and appointing an Administrator for the society.

5. The petitioner then filed Appeal No.39 of 2025 under Section 152 of the Act. Respondent No.2 dismissed the appeal by order dated 26 August 2025. Hence, this writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to consider that the General Body had approved the contribution scheme as a temporary arrangement for collecting funds for repairs. The building urgently required repairs and 95 percent of the members paid their contribution. The repair work was completed by using that contribution. He submitted that the society had provided all documents sought by respondent Nos.4 and 5. According to him, removal of the entire managing committee for alleged non submission of documents is a drastic and excessive step. He argued that the power under Section 78A of the Act cannot be used mechanically.

7. He relied on the judgment of this Court in Shalikram Shivram Khobhagade v. Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur , 1998 (1) Mh.L.J. 206. He submitted that respondent No.3 passed the order without meaningful consultation with the Federal Society as required by law. He