Bombay HC: Deputy Registrar Can't Reopen Rejected CHS Bifurcation Case

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot reopen proceedings that have already been rejected.

The court's decision came in a case involving the Shiv Shopping Centre Co-operative Housing Society in Andheri, where 17 commercial unit owners had sought to divide the society into a separate entity while the existing society was undergoing redevelopment.

After several hearings, the Deputy Registrar rejected the proposal on April 21, 2026. However, following the officer's transfer, the successor officer issued a fresh notice for hearing, stating that the matter had only been 'closed for orders' and required fresh adjudication.

The society challenged the Deputy Registrar's decision to reopen the bifurcation proceedings, arguing that the proposal had already been rejected and that the successor officer had no authority to revive the matter.

Justice Sandeep Marne set aside the Deputy Registrar's communication, holding that the April 21 order was a final rejection of the bifurcation proposal and not merely an opinion or remark. The court explained that under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, consultation with the Housing Federation is required only after the Registrar decides to proceed with bifurcation by preparing a draft scheme.

Since the proposal had already been rejected, there was no occasion to seek the Federation's views. The court observed that the Registrar needs to first apply his mind to the proposal and cannot act as a mere postman by calling for the opinion of the Federal Society immediately upon receipt of the proposal for bifurcation.

The court came down heavily on the successor officer, stating that reopening the proceedings amounted to exercising a power of review, which the Deputy Registrar does not possess. The court described the officer's actions as 'unfortunate' and 'unknown to law', adding that it was incorrect to treat a detailed 16-page order as a mere procedural note.

The court also deprecated the officer's 'enthusiasm' in reopening closed proceedings and making 'incorrect statements on oath' in the affidavit filed before the court.

The ruling provides clarity on the powers of the Deputy Registrar and the procedure for bifurcation of co-operative housing societies in Maharashtra.

The decision is significant for co-operative housing societies in the state, as it establishes that a rejected proposal cannot be reopened by a successor officer without proper authority.

The court's criticism of the successor officer's actions serves as a reminder of the importance of following proper procedures and respecting the decisions of predecessor officers.

In conclusion, the Bombay High Court's ruling in this case provides important guidance on the powers and procedures of the Deputy Registrar and co-operative housing societies in Maharashtra.

It highlights the need for officers to follow proper procedures and respect the decisions of their predecessors, and provides clarity on the procedure for bifurcation of co-operative housing societies in the state.

The decision is a significant one for co-operative housing societies in Maharashtra, and is likely to have implications for similar cases in the future.

The ruling demonstrates the court's commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that officers act within their powers and follow proper procedures.

The case serves as a reminder of the importance of respecting the decisions of predecessor officers and following proper procedures in administrative matters.

The Bombay High Court's decision in this case is a significant one, and is likely to be closely watched by co-operative housing societies and administrative officers in Maharashtra.