Bombay HC Upholds Five-Year Disqualification of Housing Society Committee Members Who Withheld Records for Over a Year

The Bombay High Court confirmed the disqualification of three managing committee members of a co-operative housing society who failed to supply demanded documents for 263 to 377 days despite four interventions by the Deputy Registrar.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne, sitting singly at the Bombay High Court, dismissed a writ petition challenging the disqualification of the Chairman, Secretary, and Treasurer of Vaishali Nagar Mahalaxmi Co-operative Housing Society Limited. The three petitioners had been disqualified as managing committee members and barred for five years from being appointed, nominated, elected, or co-opted to any committee position under Section 154B-23 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act). The disqualification arose from their failure to supply meeting minutes and an AGM video recording to a fellow committee member despite written requisitions, a Government portal complaint, and four written interventions by the Deputy Registrar spanning more than a year. Three authorities — the Deputy Registrar, the Joint Registrar, and the Minister (Co-operation) — had concurrently upheld the disqualification before the matter reached the High Court.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Respondent No. 4, Sandesh Waigankar, is a member of the managing committee elected for the term 2022 to 2027. In the previous committee (2017–2022) he had served as Treasurer. By letter dated 5 October 2023, he demanded minutes of 13 monthly managing committee meetings held between 1 April 2022 and March 2023, stating he had received WhatsApp notice for only three of those meetings. He enclosed a cheque for Rs. 200 towards copying fees. By a second letter dated 8 October 2023, he demanded a compact disc containing the video recording of the Annual General Meeting held on 24 September 2023, again enclosing Rs. 200 by cheque.

The society neither encashed the cheques nor supplied the documents within the 45-day window prescribed by Section 154B-8(2) of the MCS Act. Waigankar filed a complaint on the “Sarkar Sanvad” portal of the Government of Maharashtra. The Deputy Registrar wrote to the society on 20 November 2023 and again on 19 December 2023. Both letters warned that failure to comply would attract action. The society replied on 26 December 2023 with allegations against Waigankar and a vague willingness to supply documents “as early as possible.”

The Deputy Registrar issued formal directions under Section 154B-27(1) on 6 February 2024 and a show cause notice under Section 154B-27(2) on 15 March 2024. The minutes of committee meetings were eventually deposited at the Deputy Registrar's office on 18 January 2024 and the AGM pendrive on 13 March 2024 — both supplied to the Deputy Registrar with a request that he forward them to Waigankar, rather than delivered directly. The AGM recording was handed to Waigankar on 21 June 2024, which was 263 days after his request. The committee meeting minutes reached him on 15 October 2024, 377 days after his request.

The Deputy Registrar passed the disqualification order on 6 May 2025. The Joint Registrar's appellate order dated 24 June 2025 maintained the disqualification but set aside the concurrent direction appointing an Administrator. The Minister (Co-operation) dismissed the revision by order dated 21 April 2026. The petitioners then filed Writ Petition No. 7757 of 2026. This Court granted an ad-interim stay of the disqualification order on 5 May 2026.

The Statutory Framework: Sections 154B-8 and 154B-23 of the MCS Act

Section 154B-8(1) of the MCS Act entitles every member of a society to inspect, free of cost, enumerated documents including minutes of general meetings and managing committee meetings. Section 154B-8(2) places a duty on the society to furnish copies of those documents to a member, on a written request and on payment of prescribed fees, within 45 days of receipt of payment.

Section 154B-23(1)(iii) provides that a person held responsible under Section 154B-8(2) is disqualified from being appointed, nominated, elected, or co-opted as a committee member. Under Section 154B-23(3), a committee member who ceases to hold office on incurring this disqualification is ineligible for re-election, re-co-option, or re-nomination for five years from the date of cessation.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Marne first addressed the petitioners' argument that the cheques accompanying the October 2023 letters did not amount to payment of fees because the society never encashed them. The court rejected this. The cheques were admittedly received; the society chose not to deposit them. The 45-day clock under Section 154B-8(2) therefore ran from 5 October and 8 October 2023. Non-encashment by the society could not be used to deny that fees had been tendered.

The petitioners also argued that the documents had been supplied, first when placed with the Deputy Registrar's office and later when physically handed to Waigankar on 15 October 2024. The court examined the society's letter of 26 December 2023 closely. Paragraph 5 of that letter, which petitioners read as evidence of an attempt to serve documents on Waigankar, referred only to Waigankar's refusal to collect “said letter” (the society's reply), not the demanded documents. Paragraph 9 of the same letter showed only a willingness to supply the documents to the Deputy Registrar's office “as early as possible.” There was no documentary evidence of any direct attempt to deliver documents to Waigankar or of his refusal to accept them.

The court then considered whether substantial compliance could save the petitioners from disqualification. Relying on Shahid Tamboli and Ors. v. Divisional Joint Registrar (2023 SCC Online Bom 1479), Justice Marne noted that although disqualification is not automatic on expiry of the 45-day period and requires the Registrar to fasten responsibility after inquiry, the absence of an explicit “reasonable cause” exception in Sections 154B-8 or 154B-23 does not preclude the Registrar from considering bona fides. Substantial compliance can, in an appropriate case, avert disqualification. However, the court held that the present case did not involve mere delay. The society made the Deputy Registrar write four times, routed documents through his office rather than delivering them directly, and supplied the minutes to Waigankar only 377 days after his request. This was deliberate non-compliance, not a technical infraction.

On the separate question of the AGM video recording, Justice Marne noted that this Court had held in Mahesh Madhukar Bhartiya v. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 16171 of 2025, decided 25 June 2026) that a CD of an AGM recording is not among the documents enumerated under Section 154B-8(1) and its non-supply cannot trigger disqualification under Section 154B-23(1)(iii). However, in the present case, the disqualification was separately sustained on the non-supply of the minutes of the 13 managing committee meetings, which are enumerated documents. That independent ground was sufficient.

The court also rejected reliance on Kailash Maheshwari and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2025 SCC Online Bom 3395). That judgment arose under Section 75 of the MCS Act, which expressly confers discretion on the Registrar. Section 154B-23 operates differently. Even assuming some discretion resided in the Deputy Registrar, the conduct of the petitioners precluded its exercise in their favour.

On the motive question — the petitioners' claim that Waigankar deliberately engineered the disqualification — the court noted that Waigankar had complained precisely because he was receiving WhatsApp meeting notices with no agenda and was unaware of decisions taken in his absence. The minutes eventually revealed that the committee had, in its first meeting on 8 September 2022, raised the cash-in-hand limit retained by the Secretary from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10,000, in alleged violation of bye-law No. 144, and had never placed this decision before the AGM. The auditor had flagged the violation in audit reports for 2022–23, 2023–24, and 2024–25. This context made it difficult to conclude that Waigankar's demand was pretextual.

Outcome

Justice Marne found no valid reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the three authorities. The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merits. No order as to costs was made. The petitioners' disqualification under Section 154B-23(1)(iii) of the MCS Act stands confirmed, as does the five-year bar from holding committee office. The ad-interim stay granted on 5 May 2026 consequently ceases to operate.