The Bombay High Court has resolved a critical jurisdictional conflict in co-operative society law by holding that revision against orders passed by a District Deputy Registrar exercising delegated powers of the Registrar lies with the Divisional Joint Registrar, not the State Government. This clarification overturns a prior observation by the same court and establishes a clear hierarchical structure under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, with significant implications for electoral disqualifications and appellate remedies in co-operative governance.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from the disqualification of elected members of the managing committee of Swayambhu Vividha Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit (Society) following allegations of failure to lodge election expenditure accounts. The District Deputy Registrar-cum-District Co-operative Election Officer disqualified the members under Rule 66 of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 on 15 November 2022. The disqualified members challenged this order via Writ Petition No.14371 of 2022, while the defeated candidate, Mr. Nilesh Dilip Jagtap, sought their disqualification and later objected to the forum for revision.
Key Facts
- The disqualified members were declared elected on 15 April 2022.
- The District Deputy Registrar issued the disqualification order on 15 November 2022 under Rule 66 of the MCS Election Rules.
- The 2018 amendment to Rule 66 required the District Co-operative Election Officer to submit a report to the Registrar, who alone may declare disqualification.
- The disqualified members filed a writ petition challenging the order, which was initially dismissed on grounds of alternate remedy.
- On 27 September 2023, the Bombay High Court set aside the disqualification order and remanded the matter to the District Deputy Registrar for fresh adjudication, observing that revision lay before the State Government.
- On 16 July 2024, the District Deputy Registrar again disqualified the same members.
- The disqualified members filed a revision petition before the Divisional Joint Registrar, contrary to the 2023 observation.
- Mr. Jagtap challenged the maintainability of this revision, which was rejected by the Divisional Joint Registrar on 22 January 2025.
- Mr. Jagtap then filed Writ Petition No.2009 of 2025 against the Divisional Joint Registrar’s order.
- The disqualified members filed Review Petition (Stamp) No.29430 of 2025 seeking to recall the 2023 observation that revision lay before the State Government.
- The delay of 667 days in filing the review petition was condoned by the court.
Procedural History
- 15 April 2022: Election results declared; disqualified members elected.
- 15 November 2022: District Deputy Registrar disqualifies elected members under Rule 66.
- 27 September 2023: Bombay High Court, in WP No.14371 of 2022, sets aside disqualification and remands matter; observes revision lies before State Government.
- 16 July 2024: District Deputy Registrar reissues disqualification order.
- October 2024: Disqualified members file revision before Divisional Joint Registrar.
- 22 January 2025: Divisional Joint Registrar rejects objection to maintainability of revision.
- 2025: Writ Petition No.2009 of 2025 filed by Mr. Jagtap against Divisional Joint Registrar’s order.
- 2025: Review Petition (Stamp) No.29430 of 2025 filed by disqualified members to recall 2023 observation.
- 8 July 2026: Judgment reserved.
- 15 July 2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner (Mr. Nilesh Jagtap)
Argued that the District Deputy Registrar, having exercised the full powers of the Registrar under Rule 66 and Notification dated 11 September 2012, effectively acted as the Registrar. Therefore, revision under Section 154 of the MCS Act must lie before the State Government, as per Section 152(1)(a), which provides for appeal to the State Government against orders made by the Registrar or officers on whom powers of the Registrar are conferred.
For the Respondents (Disqualified Members)
Contended that the District Deputy Registrar, despite exercising delegated powers, remains subordinate to the Registrar and Divisional Joint Registrar under Section 3 of the MCS Act. The 2023 observation that revision lies before the State Government was obiter and erroneous, as no party had argued the precise forum, and the court had not been asked to decide jurisdiction. They relied on Section 152(1)(b), which provides revision to the Registrar against orders by subordinate officers, and argued that the Divisional Joint Registrar, as a superior officer, is the correct forum.
Relief Sought
The disqualified members sought: (i) condonation of delay in filing the review petition; (ii) recall of the 2023 observation that revision lies before the State Government; (iii) clarification that revision lies before the Divisional Joint Registrar; and (iv) dismissal of Writ Petition No.2009 of 2025. Mr. Jagtap sought: (i) dismissal of the review petition; (ii) quashing of the Divisional Joint Registrar’s order dated 22 January 2025; and (iii) direction that revision lies only before the State Government.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether revision under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 against an order passed by a District Deputy Registrar exercising delegated powers of the Registrar lies before the Divisional Joint Registrar or the State Government, particularly when the order is passed without the approval or sanction of the Registrar.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Mr. Jagtap relied on the 2023 judgment, which held that the District Deputy Registrar’s order under Rule 66 was effectively the order of the Registrar, invoking Section 152(1)(a) of the MCS Act, which provides for revision to the State Government against orders by the Registrar or officers on whom powers of the Registrar are conferred. He cited Notification dated 11 September 2012, which conferred "all powers of the Registrar" on the District Deputy Registrar, and argued that delegation equates to elevation in status. He further relied on Behari Kunj Sahkari Awas Samiti v. State of U.P., which followed Roop Chand v. State of Punjab, holding that a delegate acts as the principal.
For the Respondent/State
The Advocate General and counsel for the disqualified members argued that Section 3 of the MCS Act explicitly states that officers appointed to assist the Registrar remain subordinate to him, regardless of delegated powers. They emphasized that Section 152(1)(b) provides revision to the Registrar (and by implication, the Divisional Joint Registrar as superior officer) against orders by subordinate officers. They relied on Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge v. State of Maharashtra, Chintapalli Agency v. Secretary (Food and Agriculture), and Malad Cooperative Housing Society v. State of Maharashtra, all holding that delegation does not elevate a subordinate officer to the status of the Registrar. They further argued that the 2023 observation was obiter, as jurisdiction was not argued before the court, and the court had remanded the matter without deciding the revision forum.
The Court's Analysis
The court undertook a detailed statutory interpretation of Sections 3, 152, 154, and 158 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and examined the hierarchy of co-operative officers. It held that the mere conferment of powers under Section 3 or delegation under Section 158 does not transform a subordinate officer into the Registrar. The court emphasized the explicit language of Section 3: "They shall be subordinate to the Registrar" and "shall work under the general guidance, superintendence and control of the Registrar."
"Mere conferment of power of Registrar does not elevate their status to that of Registrar nor the decisions taken by them in exercise of powers of Registrar become the decision of the Registrar."
The court distinguished Roop Chand v. State of Punjab and Behari Kunj Sahkari Awas Samiti, noting that those cases involved delegation by the State Government itself, whereas here, delegation was by the Registrar under a statutory scheme that preserved subordination. The court found that Chintapalli Agency was directly on point: even when a Deputy Registrar exercises the Registrar’s powers, he remains subordinate.
The court further relied on Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge, which held that revision lies before the Registrar when the subordinate officer acts without approval. Since the District Deputy Registrar acted independently in this case, the revision must lie before the Divisional Joint Registrar, who is the next hierarchical superior under the structure established by the State Government’s notifications.
The court also held that the 2023 observation in WP No.14371 of 2022 was not a ratio decidendi but an obiter dictum, as the court had remanded the matter without requiring the parties to argue the revision forum. The court noted that Section 154 itself provides for revision "depending upon the rank of the officer who passed the order," not the source of the power.
The court rejected the argument that Bajarang Labour Cooperative Society supported the petitioner’s case, noting that it had been expressly distinguished and overruled by Malad Cooperative Housing Society.
The Verdict
The Review Petition was allowed in part. The court recalled its earlier observation in the 27 September 2023 judgment that revision against the District Deputy Registrar’s order lies before the State Government. It clarified that revision under Section 154 of the MCS Act against an order passed by a Deputy Registrar or District Deputy Registrar, while exercising delegated powers of the Registrar without approval from the Registrar, lies before the Divisional Joint Registrar. Writ Petition No.2009 of 2025 was dismissed, upholding the Divisional Joint Registrar’s order dated 22 January 2025. The Divisional Joint Registrar was directed to decide the pending revision within four months. There shall be no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Revision Jurisdiction Is Determined by Officer Rank, Not Power Source
- Practitioners must now identify the hierarchical rank of the officer who passed the impugned order, not whether the power was delegated.
- Orders by Assistant, Deputy, or District Deputy Registrars are always subject to revision by the Divisional Joint Registrar, unless passed with the Registrar’s approval.
- The mere use of the phrase "all powers of the Registrar" in a notification does not elevate the officer’s status for revision purposes.
Precedents on Delegation Must Be Reconciled with Statutory Hierarchy
- Roop Chand and Behari Kunj Sahkari Awas Samiti are distinguishable and do not apply where the statute explicitly preserves subordination.
- Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge and Malad Cooperative Housing Society now form the binding precedent for revision jurisdiction under the MCS Act.
- Any revision petition filed before the State Government against a subordinate officer’s order without Registrar’s approval is maintainable only if the officer acted as a delegate of the State Government, not the Registrar.
Procedural Strategy for Co-operative Disputes
- Before filing a writ petition, counsel must first determine whether the impugned order was passed with or without the Registrar’s approval.
- If without approval, the correct forum is the Divisional Joint Registrar under Section 154.
- If with approval, the State Government is the correct forum under Section 152(1)(a).
- Failure to file in the correct forum may result in dismissal on grounds of alternate remedy.
