Disqualification of committee members requires clear show cause notices, and alternative remedies must be exhausted before seeking writ relief, affirming the importance of natural justice in administrative processes.

Judgment :

KAMAL KHATA, J.

1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioners challenge:

(i) The Order dated 3^rd June 2025 passed by the Respondent No. 1 - Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies (DRCS) (impugned order) - whereby the Petitioners were disqualified and barred from being re-elected, re-co-opted or re-nominated as members of any Committee until the expiry of one term; and

(ii) The Order dated 17^th July 2025 passed by the Respondent No.18 (Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (‘DJRCS’) rejecting ad-interim reliefs seeking stay of implementation of the impugned order.

The aforestated two orders are hereinafter referred to as the impugned orders for the sake of brevity.

2. Mr. Kamat learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the rejection of the ad-interim relief by the DJRCS effectively defeats the Petitioners’ rights by barring their participation in the election process of the managing committee.Thus, reliefs are sought by filing the Writ Petition.

3. Mr. Jagtiani learned Senior Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 17 raises a preliminary objection. He submitted that, the Petitioners have an efficacious alternative statutory remedy by way of Revision Application before the State Government under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (‘Societies Act’). The Petitioners have, however, bypassed this statutory remedy and directly approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition, which is impermissible. He relied upon the case of Mohit Bhardwaj & Ors vs. State of Maharashtra, 2015 MarsdenLR 2015 :BHC-AS:25579 Dilip s/o. Yenorkar vs. Divisional Joint Registrar, 2009 (5) Mh.L.J. and Siddheshwar CHSL vs. Sunil Apte & Ors., 2016:BHC-AS:8809 in support of his above contention.

4. In response, Mr Kamat argues that there is a distinction between the maintainability and the entertainability of a Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. He argued that the rule of exhausting alternate remedies is not an absolute bar but a matter of judicial discretion, particularly when the case falls within the recognized exceptions to the general rule. He submitted that the orders passed by Respondent No.1 and 18 are challenged on two such recognized exceptions:

(i) Violation of Principles of Natural Justice.

(ii) Existence of a binding judicial precedent in favor of the Petitioners.

5. He relied upon Shireen Sami Gadiali & Anr. vs. Spenta Co- op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & Ors., 2011 (3) Mh.L.J. and Harish Arora & Ors. vs. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2833. in support of his submissions.

6. Mr. Kamath submitted that the Respondent No.1 has placed reliance on alleged WhatsApp chats while arriving at his conclusions. He submitted that this reliance was in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, warranting interference by this Court. Neither of the two show cause notices contained any charge, much less a specific charge, based on these chats, even though they were treated as one of the grounds for passing the Order under Section78A of the Societies Act against the Petitioner.

7. Relying on Gorkha Securities Services vs. Government [NCT of Delhi], (2014) 9 SCC 105 he submitted that the show-cause notice must state material grounds necessitating action, with sufficient particulars to enable the noticee to