Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 28 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellants – Vivek Mehete & Ors.; Respondents – The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Ors.
  • Proceeding Origin: The Deputy Registrar, Thane (City), initiated action under Section 75 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960, alleging default by the Society’s management in complying with various statutory requirements.
  • Deputy Registrar’s Findings: Notices were issued to the Society’s management; hearings were held; the Society failed to submit audited accounts and election information. Consequently, the Registrar disqualified seven office‑bearers, including Shri Satish Pande (Chairman), Shri Vivek Mehete (Secretary), Mrs H.N. Lohar (Treasurer), for a period of two years under Section 75(5), and noted possible penalty up to ₹5,000.
  • Appellants’ Remedy: Instead of filing a revision under Section 154, the appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed on 08‑07‑2026.
  • Appellants’ Submissions: Argued that Section 75 requires service of notice before action, which they claimed was absent; contended that action under Section 75(5) should target only the individual(s) responsible for the default, not all committee members; submitted additional documents to prove compliance.
  • Respondents’ Counter: Asserted that show‑cause notices were served, the appellants were heard on multiple dates, and they failed to produce any documents evidencing compliance; therefore, the natural‑justice claim was untenable. Also highlighted that the appellants chose the writ route despite the availability of a revision remedy.
  • Court’s Observations:

1. Section 75(5) mandates action against the specific person who, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply; the Deputy Registrar’s order did not identify such individuals.

2. The order recorded that members were deprived of transparency and held them collectively responsible, which the Court found procedurally deficient.

3. The Deputy Registrar had, in fact, served notices and provided the appellants an opportunity to be heard; thus, the claim of denial of notice or hearing was rejected.

4. No compliance documents were produced by the appellants, justifying the Registrar’s action under Section 75(5).

5. Because the responsibility of individual office‑bearers was not ascertained, the Court granted liberty to the appellants to file a revision petition under Section 154 of the 1960 Act within one month, limited to the question of culpability.

6. The parties may submit additional documents before the revisional authority to determine who should bear the disqualification.

7. The appellants may also seek interim protection from the revisional authority, to be considered on its merits.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, granting leave for the appellants to approach the revisional authority within one month to contest the disqualification on the basis of individual responsibility.
  • The appeal is dismissed; any pending applications are also disposed of.

Topics: Co-operative Society Regulation, Legal Disqualification, Revision Remedy