Bombay High Court
Sandesh Baccharam Bhapkar And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Sec. Ministry … on 15 July, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:28923
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2009 of 2025
Nilesh Dilip Jagtap ...Petitioner
V/s.
Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, Pune Division,
Pune and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.11400 OF 2025
IN
REVIEW PETITION (stamp) NO.29430 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.14371 OF 2022
Sandesh Baccharam Bhapkar and Ors. ...Petitioners
V/s.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Dr. Milind Sathe, Advocate General with Ms. P.G. Gavhane, AGP for
Respondent -State.
Mr. Sagar Kursija i/b. Mr. Ronak Utagikar for the Petitioner in
WP/2009/2025.
Mr. Shailendra Kanetkar with Mr. Pranay Kothari for Respondent Nos.4
to 16 in WP/2009/2025 and for Petitioner in RPWST/29430/2025.
Ms. Shraddha Pawar with Mr. Rushikesh Salunkhe i/b. Mr. Dilip Bodake
for Respondent No.2 in WP/2009/2025 and for Respondent No.4 in
RPW(ST)/29430/2025.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Judgment reserved on: 8 JULY 2026.
Judgment pronounced on: 15 JULY 2026.
Page No.1 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
JUDGMENT:
1) The common issue that arises for consideration in the Review
Petition and the Writ Petition is the authority before whom the Revision
Application would lie when the order sought to be revised is passed by
the District Deputy Registrar in exercise of delegated power of a
Registrar. Whether such revision would lie before the Divisional Joint
Registrar or before the State Government? Since the Review Petition and
the Writ Petition arise out of the same proceedings and involve same
question for determination, they are taken up for analogous hearing and
decision.
2) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that of elections to the
managing committee of Swayambhu Vividha Karyakari Seva Sahakari
Sanstha Maryadit (Society) were held and result were declared on 15
April 2022. Petitioners in Writ Petition No.14371 of 2022 were declared
elected and the committee was constituted. Mr. Nilesh Jagptap
(Petitioner in WP No. 2009 of 2025), who was one of the defeated
candidates, filed a complaint with the District Co-operative Election
Officer seeking disqualification of the elected members on the ground
that they had failed to lodge accounts of election expenditure. By Order
dated 15 November 2022, the District Deputy Registrar-cum-District Co-
operative Election Officer disqualified the elected members under Rule
66 of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies (Election to
Committee) Rules, 2014 (MCS Election Rules). Writ Petition No. 14371 of
2022 was filed challenging the Order dated 15 November 2022 by the
elected members. The Petition was opposed by Mr. Nilesh Jagtap inter
Page No.2 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
alia on the ground of availability of alternate remedy of filing revision
under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960
(MCS Act).
3) By the judgment and order dated 27 September 2023 passed in
Writ Petition No.14371 of 2022, this Court held that an alternate remedy
under Section 154 of the MCS Act was available before the State
Government against order dated 15 November 2022 passed by the
District Deputy Registrar disqualifying the Petitioners therein. However,
instead of relegating the Petitioners to the alternate remedy, this Court
set aside order dated 15 November 2022 and remanded the proceedings
to District Deputy Registrar-cum-District Co-operative Election Officer
for being decided afresh. In the remanded proceedings, the District
Deputy Registrar-cum-District Co-operative Election Officer has passed
order dated 16 July 2024 once again disqualifying the Petitioners of Writ
Petition No.14371 of 2022 under Rule 66 of the MCS Election Rules. In
accordance with the observations made by this Court in the order 27
September 2023, the disqualified members have exercised the remedy of
revision against order dated 16 July 2024. However, contrary to the
observations made by this Court that revision would lie before the State
Government, the revision has been filed before the Divisional Joint
Registrar. The Complainant-Mr. Nilesh Jagtap raised his objections to the
maintainability of revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar. By order
dated 22 January 2025, the Divisional Joint Registrar has rejected the
Application filed by Mr. Nilesh Jagtap and has held the revision to be
maintainable. Aggrieved by order dated 22 January 2025, Mr. Jagtap has
filed Writ Petition No.2009 of 2025.
Page No.3 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
4) During the course of hearing of Writ Petition No.2009 of 2025, it
was sought to be urged on behalf of the disqualified members that the
revision against order passed by the Deputy Registrar can only lie before
the Divisional Joint Registrar. However, the observations made by this
Court in order dated 27 September 2023 about maintainability of
revision before the State Government were coming in the way of
disqualified members in prosecuting their revision before the Divisional
Joint Registrar. Accordingly, the disqualified members/Petitioners of Writ
Petition No.14371 of 2022 have sought review of order dated 27
September 2023 to the limited extent of this Court observing that the
remedy of revision against the order of District Deputy Registrar-cum-
District Cooperative Election Officer would lie before the State
Government. Accordingly, Review Petition (stamp) No.29430 of 2025 is
filed. There is delay of 667 days in filing the Review Petition for
condonation of which Interim Application No.11400 of 2025 is filed.
5) The disqualified members (Review Petitioners) have thus taken a
stand that the Revision against the order passed by the District Deputy
Registrar would lie before the Divisional Joint Registrar whereas the
Petitioner in the Writ Petition has contended that such Revision would
lie only before the State Government since the District Deputy Registrar
has passed the Order in exercise of delegated power of Registrar. It was
sought to be suggested by the learned counsel appearing for Writ
Petitioners that against every order passed by the Assistant, Deputy or
District Deputy Registrar while exercising delegated powers of Registrar,
the Revision would lie only before the State Government. It was noticed
that under the various Notifications issued by the State Government
appointing various officers to assist the Registrar and specifying the
Page No.4 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
local limits of their operations, they have been conferred substantial
powers exercisable by the Registrar. The argument presented on behalf
of the Writ Petitioner would virtually mean that no revision would lie
before the Divisional Joint Registrar and flooding the State Government
with all the Revisions arising throughout the State, thereby resulting in
an incongruous situation.
6) In the light of the intricate issue involved in the present
proceedings having wider ramifications, this Court requested the learned
Advocate General by order dated 1 July 2026 to address the Court and
render his assistance for effective resolution of the issue involved in the
proceedings.
7) Dr. Sathe, the learned Advocate General, appearing for the
Respondent-State submits that the Deputy Registrar or District Deputy
Registrar is subordinate to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies
under the provisions of Section 3 of the MCS Act. He submits that even
though powers of Registrar are conferred on the Deputy Registrar, he
continues to remain subordinate to the Registrar, who can exercise
superintendence and control over the Deputy Registrar. That therefore
order passed by the Deputy Registrar does not become an order of the
Registrar. That the statutory scheme of the MCS Act is such that it is
permissible to confer powers of Registrar on subordinate officers while
Registrar continues to exercise power of superintendence and control
over such subordinate officer. He submits that under the hierarchical
structure, the posts of Registrar, Special Registrar, Additional Registrar
and Divisional Joint Registrar fall into the category of the ‘Registrar’
whereas posts of Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar and District
Page No.5 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
Deputy Registrar are posts subordinate to the posts of Registrar. That
therefore orders passed by the Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar and
District Deputy Registrar are amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the
Divisional Joint Registrar. He relies on judgment of this Court in
Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge V/s. State of Maharashtra 1 in support of
his contention that when Assistant Registrar passes order exercising
powers of Registrar without seeking approval of Registrar, revision would
lie before the Registrar. Dr. Sathe submits that similar issue is also
decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chintapalli Agency Taluk Arrack
Sales Cooperative Society Ltd. and Others V/s. Secretary (Food and
Agriculture) Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others 2, in which it is
held that though Deputy Registrar exercises powers as Registrar, he
always remain under the general superintendence of Registrar and that
therefore Registrar can exercise power of revision over order passed by
the Deputy Registrar. He also relies on judgment of this Court in Malad
Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Another V/s. State of
Maharashtra and Others3 in support of his contention that delegation of
power under the MCS Act under Section 158 does not make a subordinate
officer equivalent to the Registrar.
8) Dr. Sathe places on record Notification dated 24 November 2021,
which is applicable in the present case and submits that Notification
dated 11 September 2012 referred to in paragraph 18 of the judgment
under review was already superseded by Notification dated 24 November
2021. He submits that under the Notification dated 24 November 2021,
the State Government has appointed Deputy Registrar and Assistant
1 (1966) 69 Bom LR 150
2 (1977) 4 SCC 337
3 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2631
Page No.6 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
Registrar in Taluka /Wards to assist the Registrar and has conferred on
them powers of Registrar as enumerated in Column 3 of the Schedule in
the area specified in Column 4 thereof. That in the present case, Deputy
Registrar-cum-District Co-operative Election Officer has exercised power
conferred under Notification dated 24 November 2021 while passing
order dated 15 November 2022.
9) Dr. Sathe accordingly concludes by submitting that though the
District Deputy Registrar has exercised power under Rule 66 of the
Election Rules, he still remains under control and supervision of the
Registrar and that therefore, revision against the decision of the District
Deputy Registrar would lie before the Divisional Joint Registrar and not
before the State Government.
10) Mr. Kanetkar, the learned counsel appearing for the Review
Petitioners, who are also the contesting Respondents in Writ Petition
No.2009 of 2025, submits that the Judgment and Order dated 27
September 2023 needs to be reviewed to the limited extent of clarifying
that the revision would lie before the Divisional Joint Registrar and not
before the State Government. He also prays for condonation of delay in
filing the Review Petition submitting that the delay is caused essentially
due to occurrence of subsequent events resulting in confusion about the
exact authority before whom the revision would lie.
11) Mr. Kanetkar further submits that the Revision under Section 154
of the MCS Act against order passed by the Deputy Registrar would lie
before the Divisional Joint Registrar. He submits that this Court has
essentially decided the issue of availability of alternate remedy against
Page No.7 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
order passed by the Deputy Registrar-cum District co-operative Election
officer under Section 154 of the MCS Act and that the exact authority
before whom such alternate remedy would lie was not the issue for
consideration before this Court. That none of the parties had canvassed
submissions about exact authority before whom the revision would lie.
He invites attention of this Court to the Notification dated 11 September
2012 referred to in paragraph 18 of the judgment under review and
submits that since the Deputy Registrar has exercised power of
disqualification under Rule 66 of the Election Rules, the Revision would
not lie to the State Government as Section 154(2) provides for revision to
the State Government only if the order is passed by Registrar /Additional
Registrar or Joint Registrar. He submits that the observations made by
this Court in paragraphs 29 to 30 of the judgment about alternate
remedy of revision before the State Government suffers from an obvious
error, which is apparent on face of record. He therefore prays for review
of the judgment dated 27 September 2023 and seeks clarification that the
revision would lie before the Divisional Joint Registrar. He submits that
once the observations in the judgment are reviewed, order passed by the
Divisional Joint Registrar on 22 January 2025 rejecting maintainability
application of the Complainant would automatically be validated,
warranting dismissal of Writ Petition No.2009 of 2025.
12) Mr. Kursija, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in
Writ Petition No.2009 of 2025, who is also Respondent No.6 in Review
Petition, submits that this Court has correctly held that the revision
against order of disqualification passed by the Deputy Registrar -cum-
District Co-operative Election Officer would lie before the State
Government. He submits that the District Deputy Registrar has exercised
Page No.8 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
powers of Registrar under Rule 66 of the Election Rules. He relies on
Notification dated 11 September 2012 in support of his contention that
Column 4 of the Schedule appended thereto confers ‘ all powers of the
Registrar under the Act and the Rules ‘ on District Deputy Registrar,
whose post has been created by the said Notification. That thus, the
District Deputy Registrar exercises delegated powers of Registrar under
Rule 66 of the MCS Election Rules. He relies on provisions of Section 158
of the MCS Act in support of his contention that there is delegation of
powers of Registrar to the District Deputy Registrar. He relies on
judgment of Single Judge of this Court in Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge
(supra) in support of his contention that Divisional Joint Registrar
cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction to examine the legality of order
passed by the District Deputy Registrar or by any officer subordinate to
the Divisional Joint Registrar as a delegatee of the Registrar. He also
relies on judgment of the Apex Court in Behari Kunj Sahkari Awas Samiti
& Anr vs State of U.P. & Ors. 4 in support of his contention that when an
authority passes an order with the approval of the higher authority the
revision against such order is not maintainable before the approving
authority. He submits that since the Deputy Registrar has exercised
powers of Registrar, Divisional Joint Registrar entertaining revision
would virtually tantamount to exercise of powers of review. Mr. Kursija
accordingly prays for dismissal of the Review Petition and for setting
aside order dated 22 January 2025 and seeks dismissal of the Revision
pending before the Divisional Joint Registrar.
13) Rival contentions on the issue of the authority before whom the
remedy of revision would lie, now fall for my consideration.
4 1997 (7) SCC 37
Page No.9 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
14) There is delay of 667 days in filing the Review Petition. As
observed above, the issue involved in the Review Petition and in Writ
Petition No.2009 of 2025 is the same viz., the exact authority before
whom revision against order passed by District Deputy Registrar-cum-
District Co-operative Election Officer would lie. The issue is, can this be
decided in either of the proceedings. Even if the delay is not condoned
and the Review is dismissed on that count, the issue will still have to be
decided in the Writ Petition on merits. Hence in order to decide the issue,
it would be just and proper to condone the delay in filing the Review
Petition so that the same can be decided on merits. Delay has essentially
occurred on account of the fact that disqualified members first defended
the proceedings before the District Deputy Registrar in the proceedings
remanded by this Court. They were thereafter required to file Revision
against the order of the District Deputy Registrar, which they were
advised to file before the Divisional Joint Registrar. They defended
objection of maintainability raised by the Complainant. After the
objection of maintainability was repelled, Writ Petition No.2009 of 2025
is filed by the Complainant and during the course of hearing of that
Petition, it transpired that observations made in the order under review
suggest as if the revision would lie only before the State Government. In
that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay in
filing the Review Petition.
15) The elected members of the Society are aggrieved by their
disqualification as members of the Managing Committee for a period of
three years under the provision of Rule 66 of the MCS Election Rules.
Their disqualification was initially ordered by the District Co-operative
Page No.10 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
Election Officer-cum-District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
Pune (Rural), Pune by order dated 15 November 2022. They assailed
order dated 15 November 2022 by filing Writ Petition No.14371 of 2022.
Entertainability of Writ Petition was questioned by the Complainant-Mr.
Nilesh Jagtap on the ground of availability of alternate remedy of
revision under Section 154 of the MCS Act. This Court analysed the
provisions of Rules 65, 66 and 67 of the Election Rules as well as the
definition of the term ‘the District Co-operative Election Officer’ in Rule
2(8). After examining the powers of the State Co-operative Election
Authority under Rule 3, this Court arrived at a conclusion that initiation
of proceedings under Rule 66 of the MCS Election Rules is by the District
Co-operative Election Officer, who first needs to record a satisfaction
that there is failure in lodging account of election expenses within the
prescribed time and as per particulars specified in Rule 67 of the Election
Rules. However, in the judgment dated 27 September 2023, it appears
that provisions of unamended Rule 66 are quoted. After amendment
w.e.f. 6 August 2018, Rule 66 of the MCS Election Rules read thus:
66. Disqualification for failure of lodge account of election expenses.
(1) If the District Co-operative Election Officer is satisfied that a
person,-
(a) has failed to lodge an account of election expenses
within the time and in the manner required by the last
preceding section, and
(b) has no good reason or justification for the failure,
the District Co-operative Election Officer or Taluka or Ward
Co-operative Election Officer, as the cae may be, shall
submit report to the Registrar and after receipt of such
report, the concerned Registrar after providing an
opportunity of being heard shall, by order, declare him to
be disqualified for being elected as, and for being, a
member of the committee of any society, and any such
person shall be disqualified for a period of three years from
the date of the order.
Page No.11 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
16) The change brought about by 2018 amendment is to empower even
Taluka or Ward Co-operative Election Officer to submit report to the
Registrar under clause (b) of Rule 66(1) of the MCS Election Rules. Be
that as it may. This Court proceeded to hold in paragraph 16 of the
judgment under review that theoretically the Deputy Registrar
proceeded to hold in paragraphs 16 and 20 of the judgment under review
as under:
16. However under Rule 66, though the District Cooperative Election
Officer is empowered to record a satisfaction that there is failure by a
candidate to lodge the account of election expenses within time and
as per particulars specified in Rule 67, the ultimate jurisdiction of
taking the decision of disqualification is vested in the Registrar. Thus
there is transfer of proceedings from SCEA machinery to the
Registrar appointed under the Act of 1960 within Rule 66. The
jurisdiction of District Cooperative Election Officer is restricted to
recording of satisfaction about failure to lodge and examining the
reasons / justification for delay in lodging the account of election
expenses. He has to thereafter make a report to the Registrar, who
alone is empowered to make a declaration of disqualification.
xxx
20. As observed above, under Rule 66 of the Election Rules, the
Registrar is empowered to take a decision of disqualification of
member of a Committee. Thus, the Deputy Registrar has exercised
powers as Registrar under Rule 66 while passing the order dated
15/11/2022. It is thus Registrar’s decision and not of District
Cooperative Election Officer.
17) This Court accordingly held that the Deputy Registrar exercises
powers of Registrar under Rule 66 of the MCS Election Rules while
passing an order of disqualification. This is how this Court held that a
revision would be maintainable against the decision of the Deputy
Registrar disqualifying an elected member under Rule 66 of the Election
Rules. This Court concluded in paragraph 23 of the judgment under
review as under:
Page No.12 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
23. A conclusion is already recorded that the decision of making
deliration of Petitioners’ disqualification is taken by the Deputy
Registrar in exercise of delegated powers of Registrar. I am therefore
of the view that a Revision under Section 154 would be maintainable
against decision taken by a Registrar (or by Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies while exercising delegated powers of the
Registrar) under Rule 66 of the Election Rules. This answers the first
issue.
18) However, in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the judgment, this Court has
made observations that Revision under Section 154 of the MCS Act
would lie before the State Government. The observations in paragraphs
29 and 30 read thus:
29. In ordinary course, since this error on the part of Deputy
Registrar / Registrar is capable of being corrected in Revision filed
before the State Government, this Petition could be disposed of
relegating Petitioners to the alternate remedy of revision. …
30. Therefore, though there is an alternate remedy available for the
Petitioners to file Revision under Section 154 of the Act of 1960 before
the State Government, considering the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case where reasons or justifications given by the
Petitioners for failure to lodge accounts of election expenses within
60 days have not at all been examined by the Deputy Registrar-cum-
District Cooperative Election Officer, the proceedings are required to
be remanded rather than relegating Petitioners to alternate remedy of
Revision under Section 154 of the Act of 1960. …
(emphasis added)
19) It must be observed that the issue for consideration before this
Court while deciding Writ Petition No.14371 of 2022 was limited only
with regard to the availability of remedy of revision against order passed
by the District Deputy Registrar under Rule 66 of the MCS Election Rules.
This Court was not called upon to answer the issue of exact authority
before whom such revision would lie. In fact, the occasion for deciding
the issue of the authority before whom the revision would lie never arose
before this Court as it remanded the proceedings to District Deputy
Page No.13 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
Registrar for being decided afresh. In that sense, observations in
paragraphs 29 and 30 about maintainability of the Revision before the
State Government cannot be read to mean as if this Court has decided
the issue about the authority before whom the revision would lie. I
proceed to consider whether a case is made out for recall of those
observations in the judgment under review while analogously deciding
the same issue directly raised in Writ Petition No. 2009 of 2025.
20) To decide the issue, it would be apposite to consider the provisions
of the MCS Act, under which the Registrar and various other officers are
appointed. Section 3 of the MCS Act provides for appointment of
Registrar and his subordinates and provides thus:
3. Registrar and his subordinates
The State Government may appoint a person to be the Registrar of
Co-operative Societies for the State; and may appoint one or more
persons to assist such Registrar, with such designations, and in such
local areas or throughout the State, as it may specify in that behalf,
and may, by general or special order, confer on any such person or
persons all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act. The
person or persons so appointed to assist the Registrar and on whom
any powers of the Registrar are conferred, shall work under the
general guidance, superintendence and control of the Registrar. They
shall be subordinate to the Registrar, and subordination of such
persons amongst themselves shall be such as may be determined by
the State Government.
(emphasis and underlining added)
21) Thus, Section 3 of the MCS Act is in three parts. The first part deals
with appointment, the second part deals with conferment of powers and
the third part deals with supervision /control/ guidance over the person
so appointed. In the first part, the State Government can appoint a
person to be the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the State.
Page No.14 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
Additionally, the State Government can also appoint one or more
persons to assist such Registrar with different designations and for
different local areas throughout the State. In the second part, the State
Government can, by general or special order, confer on person appointed
to assist the Registrar all or any of the powers of the Registrar under the
MCS Act. However, the third part of Section 3 makes it clear that the
person appointed to assist the Registrar, on whom powers of Registrar
are conferred, continues to work under general guidance,
superintendence and control of the Registrar. The third part also makes
it clear that such person shall always be subordinate to the Registrar.
Thus, persons appointed to assist the Registrar not only work under his
supervision and control but are in fact subordinate to him. Mere
confernment of powers of Registrar on such persons 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
decisions taken by them would continue to be the decision taken by an
officer subordinate to the Registrar.
22) The State Government has issued various orders in exercise of
powers conferred under Section 3 of the MCS Act appointing persons to
assist the Registrar and conferring on them powers of Registrar by
specifying the area for exercise of such powers. Said orders are issued
from time to time beginning from 6 October 1981. One such
Notification /order dated 11 September 2012 is referred to in paragraph
18 of the judgment under review. Dr. Sathe has placed on record copy of
subsequent Order dated 24 November 2021, which supersedes all
previous Orders including the Order dated 11 September 2012. Under
Order dated 24 November 2021, the State Government has appointed a
Page No.15 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
Special Registrar of Co-operative Societies at Headquarters, who
exercises powers of Registrar excepting the ones indicated in Column 3
to the Schedule in the area of the whole State. The State Government has
also appointed an Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies at the
Headquarters for the whole State. The State Government has appointed
Divisional Joint Registrars of Co-operative Societies for each Division in
the State and has conferred on them all powers of Registrar excepting the
one indicated in Column 3 of the Schedule. Similarly, the District Deputy
Registrars are appointed for each of the Districts and four District
Deputy Registrars are appointed for city of Mumbai and a District Deputy
Registrar is appointed for Pune and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal
Corporation. For Talukas/ Wards, the Deputy Registrars and Assistant
Registrars are appointed to exercise all powers of Registrar excepting the
one indicated in Column 3 of the Schedule.
23) Dr. Sathe has clarified that the Assistant Registrar, Deputy
Registrar and District Deputy Registrars form a homogeneous class for
the purpose of their subordination to the Registrar, Special Registrar,
Additional Registrar and Divisional Joint Registrar, who form another
homogeneous class. Therefore, though Assistant Registrar, Deputy
Registrar or District Deputy Registrar may be conferred powers of
Registrar under Section 3 of the MCS Act, they continue to remain
subordinate to the Registrar, and also to the Divisional Joint Registrar,
since they work under general guidance, supervision and control of the
Registrar. As observed above, mere conferment of power of Registrar
does not elevate them to the status of Registrar and they continue to
remain subordinate to the Registrar.
Page No.16 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
24) Under Section 158 of the MCS Act, the State Government can
delegate powers of Registrar to any officer or authority. Section 158 of
the MCS Act provides thus:
158. Delegation of power of Registrar to certain authorities and
officersThe State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, and
subject to such conditions (if any) as it may think fit to impose,
delegate all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act to any
federal authority or to an officer thereof or to any other authority and
such officer or authorities shall work under the general guidance,
superintendence and control of the Registrar specified in the
notification.
(emphasis added)
25) Thus, even in Section 158 of the MCS Act, while recognizing the
power of delegation, the provision makes it explicitly clear that the
delegatee officer continues to function under the general guidance,
superintendence and control of the Registrar. Therefore, though the
powers of Registrar can be delegated to an officer or authority under
Section 158 of the Act, such officer or authority still works under the
general guidance, superintendence and control of the Registrar while
execrcising the delegated powers. As observed above, Section 3 of the
MCS Act makes such officer subordinate to the Registrar. Thus,
provisions of Sections 3 and 158 of the MCS Act, when read
harmoniously, lead to an inescapable conclusion that the decisions taken
and orders passed by the delegatee officers under the Act while
exercising the powers of the delegating officer, continue to be the
decisions/orders of the subordinate officer, capable of being revised by
the Registrar.
Page No.17 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
26) In Chintapalli Agency (supra) provisions of Andhra Pradesh
Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 fell for consideration before three Judge
Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh
Cooperative Societies Act, there is pari materia provision for
appointment of Registrar of Co-operative Societies Act and every person
to work under general superintendence of Registrar. The issue before the
Apex Court was whether revision against order passed by the Deputy
Registrar was amenable before the Registrar since the Deputy Registrar
had exercised delegated powers of the Registrar. Reliance was placed on
judgment of the Apex Court in Roop Chand V/s. State of Punjab 5 in
which it was held that when an officer acts as a delegatee of the
Government, he exercises statutory power of appeal of the Government.
The Apex Court distinguished its judgment in Roop Chand and held that
statutory scheme in Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act was
entirely different where though Deputy Registrar exercises power of a
Registrar, but he always remains under general superintendence of the
Registrar. The Apex Court held that the scheme of State Government-
East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation)
Act, 1948 in Roop Chand’s case was different from Andhra Pradesh
Cooperative Societies Act. The Apex Court held in paragraphs 19 and 20
of the judgment as under:
19. Roop Chand’s case (supra) is clearly distinguishable since there
under section 41(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation
and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, the State
Government appoints persons and delegates its powers or
functions under the Act to such officers. When, therefore, an
officer acts as a delegate of the State Government he exercises
statutory power of appeal of the Government under section 21 (4)
of the Act. This Court observed,in that case:
5 1963 Supp 1 SCR 539
Page No.18 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt“…. such a power when delegated remains the power of
the Government, for the Government can only delegate
the power given to it by the statute and cannot create an
independent power in the officer. When the delegate
exercises the power, he does so for the Government”.
20. In the present case it is true the power under section 16 is that
of the Registrar but the Deputy Registrar exercises that power as
empowered by the Government but always “under the general
superintendence of the Registrar”. Again, under section 76(2) any
order passed in pursuance of the power so exercised under section
16 is appealable to the Registrar as an order passed by “any other
officer” appointed under section 3(1). The scheme of the
Consolidation Act which this Court had to deal with in Roop
Chand’s case (supra) is different from that of the Co-operative Act.
The submission of counsel that the Registrar’s order in revision is
a nullity is devoid of substance.
27) As early as in the year 1966, a Division Bench of this Court in
Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge (supra) has interpreted the provisions of
Section 3 of the MCS Act in the context of revision remedy under Section
154 of the MCS Act. In that case, the Assistant Registrar had exercised
jurisdiction under Section 91 of the MCS Act in exercise of powers
conferred under Section 3 of the MCS Act. The issue before the Division
Bench was whether the Registrar could exercise power of revision against
order of Assistant Registrar. This Court held in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the
judgment as under:
8. Section 3 provides for delegation of powers of the Registrar to any
subordinate officer by the State Government, either by general or
special order. It further provides that a person or persons so
appointed to assist the Registrar and on whom any powers of the
Registrar are conferred, shall work under the general guidance,
superintendence and control of the Registrar. This section makes it
clear that even if the Assistant Registrar is empowered to exercise the
powers of the Registrar, even so the Assistant Registrar works under
the guidance, superintendence and control of the Registrar himself.
He is clearly, therefore, subordinate to the Registrar. It is not possible
to contend that merely because the Assistant Registrar exercises the
Page No.19 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
delegated powers of the Registrar, his order must be taken to be the
order of the Registrar. Under the Act, all the duties are cast on the
Registrar. There is no statutory duty cast on the Additional or Deputy
Registrar or Assistant Registrar as such. In all these cases, therefore,
where delegated powers are exercised, they are exercised by virtue ‘of
s.3, and in many cases the powers exercised are powers of the
Registrar. Even so, all these officers are subordinate to the Registrar as
shown by s.152 which provides the forum of appeal against the orders
made by respective officers. Section 152(1) states that-
” An appeal against an order or decision under Sections 4, 9, 11,
12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 29, 35, 78 and 105 shall lie,-
(a) if made or sanctioned or approved by the Registrar, or
the Additional or Joint Registrar on whom powers of the
Registrar are conferred, to the State Government,
(b) if made or sanctioned by any person other than the
Registrar, or the Additional or Joint Registrar on whom
the powers of the Registrar are conferred, to the Registrar.
9. In the present case, the order is made by the Assistant Registrar. If
it is made with the approval of the Registrar, then the revisional
jurisdiction must, on the principles of this section, lie to the State
Government, because, in that case, it becomes virtually the order of
the Registrar. If, however, the order is made by the Assistant Registrar
without reference to the Registrar, then the revision application will
lie to the Registrar. In every case, whether the revision lies to the
State Government or to the Registrar must, in view of s.152 depend
upon whether the order was made with the approval or sanction of
the Registrar. All are agreed before us that, in the present case, the
order was passed by the Assistant Registrar on his own without the
sanction or approval of the Registrar. In accordance with the
principles laid down by us, the revisional jurisdiction will, therefore,
be of the Registrar.
(Emphasis supplied)
28) Thus, as held in Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge (supra), even if the
Assistant Registrar is empowered to exercise powers of the Registrar, he
still works under guidance, supervision and control of the Registrar and
remains subordinate to the Registrar. It is held that merely because
Assistant Registrar exercises the delegated powers of the Registrar, his
order cannot be taken as order of the Registrar. It is further held that
only if the order is made by the Assistant Registrar with the approval of
the Registrar, revisional jurisdiction would lie to the State Government
Page No.20 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
since the said order becomes virtually the order of the Registrar.
However, when Assistant Registrar makes an order without approval of
the Registrar, the revision application would lie before the Registrar. In
my view, judgment in Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge (supra) provides
complete answer to the issue involved in the present proceedings. It
must however be added here that after delivery of the Division Bench
judgment in Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge (supra) on 27 July 1966,
provision of Section 3 of the MCS Act are amended by inserting the
following portion:
They shall be subordinate to the Registrar, and subordination of such
persons amongst themselves shall be such as may be determined by
the State Government.
Thus, in tune with what is observed by the Division Bench in Krishnarao
Bakaramji Hadge , now there is statutory declaration of subordination of
assisting officers to the Registrar.
29) The judgment in Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge (supra) is followed
by Single Judge of this Court in Malad Cooperative Housing Society
Limited and Another V/s. State of Maharashtra and Others 6 in which a
contention was canvassed that the District Deputy Registrar exercises
power as a delegatee of a Registrar under Section 158 of the MCS Act and
that therefore the Divisional Joint Registrar had no jurisdiction to
entertain a revision application against such order. The submission was
canvassed by relying on judgment of this Court in Bajarang Labour
Cooperative Society, Mahagaon (Z) vs. Divisional Joint Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, Nagpur and Others7. The submission was
6 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2631
7 2016 (2) Mh.L.J. 849Page No.21 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odtcountered by the opposing parties placing reliance on judgment of
Division Bench of this Court in Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge (supra). This
Court held in paragraphs 44 and 54 as under:-
44. The only harmonious reading is that a subordinate officer exercises
powers delegated from the Registrar, such officer remains subordinate,
and his order continues to be his order as subordinate officer, though
passed in exercise of delegated power. Such order therefore is
amenable to revision under Section 154 depending upon the rank of
officer. Sections 3 and 158 clearly establish that delegation of powers
under the Act does not make the subordinate officer equivalent to the
Registrar. They permit exercise of specified powers while preserving
supervision and control. Section 154 indicates that the Act
contemplates revisional scrutiny over orders passed by subordinate
officers notwithstanding that such officers may have exercised powers
originally vesting in the Registrar. Hence, the revisional jurisdiction
exercised in the present matter cannot be faulted on that count.
xxx
54. Further support to the aforesaid interpretation is also available
from the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Cipla Limited
v. Competent Authority and the District Deputy Registrar, Co operative
Society and Others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 622, wherein
while considering the scheme of the Maharashtra Cooperative societies
Act and the status of officers functioning thereunder, the Division
Bench has reiterated the distinction between the Registrar and
subordinate officers functioning below him. In paragraphs 131 to 133
of the said judgment, the Division Bench took note of the position of
Registrars and subordinate officers and observed that the office of the
Deputy District Registrar is not at par with the post of the Registrar.
The Division Bench thereafter referred to the earlier binding precedent
in Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge and reiterated that even where powers
of the Registrar are conferred upon subordinate officers under Section
3 of the Act, such officers continue to function under the
superintendence of the Registrar and remain subordinate to him. The
Division Bench further observed that merely because an Assistant
Registrar, Deputy Registrar or similar subordinate officer exercises
delegated powers of the Registrar, it cannot be contended that the
order passed by such officer must be treated as the order of the
Registrar himself. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid observations
of the Division Bench directly go against the contention sought to be
raised by the petitioners in the present matter that once delegated
powers are exercised by the Deputy Registrar, the resulting order must
be equated with an order of the Registrar himself. The ratio of Cipla
Limited, read with Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge, clearly affirms that
delegation of power does it obliterate the distinction between the
Page No.22 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
principal authority and the subordinate officer exercising delegated
powers. Thus, even on the basis of the binding Division Bench
precedent of this Court, the submission advanced by the petitioners on
the question of jurisdiction cannot be sustained.
30) Thus, in Malad Cooperative Housing Society Limited (supra) this
Court considered the ratio of the judgments of the Apex Court in
Chintapalli Agency (supra), Roop Chand (supra) and Cipla Limited v.
Competent Authority and the District Deputy Registrar, Co operative
Society and Others,8 and of Division Bench judgment of this Court in
Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge (supra) and held that the Divisional Joint
Registrar could entertain revision against the order passed by the Deputy
Registrar while exercising delegated powers of Registrar. More
importantly, this Court distinguished the ratio of the judgment of this
Court in Bajarang Labour Cooperative Society, and has held in paragraph
55 of the judgment as under:
55. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed
considerable reliance upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Bajarang Labour Cooperative Society and submitted that the
said decision, after considering Sections 158 and 23(1A) of the
Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act, took the view that by virtue of
the Government Notification dated 11 September 2012, powers of the
Registrar stood delegated to the Deputy Registrar and therefore while
entertaining such applications the District Deputy Registrar acts as
delegate of the Registrar, and no revision could thereafter lie before the
Divisional Joint Registrar. It has further been pointed out that the said
view has thereafter been followed in Ravi Vishwanath Ghumre and also
in Deepali Majoor Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit. This Court is unable to
accept the same as in the first place, the proposition canvassed in
Bajarang Labour appears to proceed on a application of the doctrine
that an act of delegate is to be treated as act of delegator. However,
such proposition, with respect, cannot be read divorced from binding
precedents of superior Courts. As already discussed hereinabove, the
Supreme Court in Chintapalli Agency and Yogendra Prasad has held
that where the statute itself preserves supervision and distinction
between the Registrar and subordinate officers, the conferment of
delegated powers upon subordinate officers does not elevate such82021 SCC OnLine Bom 622
Page No.23 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odtofficer to the status of Registrar. Equally, Division Bench judgments of
this Court in Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge and Cipla Limited have
reiterated that subordinate officers exercising delegated powers remain
subordinate. These authorities explain the statutory scheme and make
it clear that delegation under Sections 3 or 158 does not obliterate
statutory position of Registrar. Further, Section 154 itself provides that
revision shall lie depending upon the rank of the officer who passed the
order, and not merely upon the source from which power is derived. In
that view of the matter, the reasoning in Bajarang Labour does not
align with Supreme Court and Division Bench precedents noticed
above. Mere subsequent following of Bajarang Labour by coordinate
Benches in Ravi Vishwanath Ghumre and Deepali Majoor Sahakari
Sanstha would not change the position where the issue stands covered
by judgments of Supreme Court. Accordingly, with utmost respect, the
reliance placed by the petitioners upon the aforesaid line of judgments
does not persuade this Court to accept the contention that the
Divisional Joint Registrar lacked jurisdiction to entertain the revision
merely because the original order was passed by the Deputy Registrar
exercising delegated powers.
31) Thus, the ratio of the judgments in Chintapalli Agency, Krishnarao
Bakaramji Hadge and Malad Cooperative Housing Society Limited
(supra), leaves no manner of doubt that even if a District Deputy
Registrar exercises powers of Registrar under the MCS Act, he still
remains subordinate to the Registrar and that therefore the order passed
by him does not become order of the Registrar. Therefore, revision
against order made by a District Deputy Registrar would lie before the
Divisional Joint Registrar.
32) The judgment of Single Judge of this Court in Bajarang Labour
Cooperative Society, (supra) need not be separately discussed since the
same is distinguished by this Court in Malad Cooperative Housing
Society Limited (supra). The judgment of the Apex Court in Behari Kunj
Sahkari Awas Samiti (supra) follows the ratio of the judgment in Roop
Chand (supra), which has already been distinguished by the Apex Court
in Chintapalli Agency (supra).
Page No.24 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
33) Conspectus of the above discussion is that the District Deputy
Registrar, while passing order of disqualification under Rule 66 of the
MCS Election Rules, though has exercised powers of Registrar, he still
remains subordinate to the Registrar. The order passed by the District
Deputy Registrar under Rule 66 of the MCS Election Rules does not
become order passed by the Registrar. In the present case, the District
Deputy Registrar has not sought approval of the Registrar while passing
order of disqualification. Therefore, revision application under Section
154 of the MCS Act against order passed by the District Deputy Registrar
or a Deputy Registrar would lie before the Divisional Joint Registrar.
34) In my view, therefore, the observations made by this Court in
paragraphs 29 and 30 of the judgment under review about availability of
remedy of revision before the State Government need to be reviewed and
recalled and it needs to be clarified that such revision would lie before
the Divisional Joint Registrar.
35) Once the observations of this Court in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the
judgment under review are clarified by holding that the Divisional Joint
Registrar can exercise revisional powers against order passed by the
District Deputy Registrar/Deputy Registrar under Rule 66 of the MCS
Election Rules, the order dated 22 January 2025 will have to be
necessarily upheld by dismissing Writ Petition No.2009 of 2025.
36) I accordingly, proceed to pass the following order:
(i) Delay in filing the Review Petition is condoned.
Page No.25 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
(ii) Observations made by this Court in paragraphs 29 and
30 of the judgment and order dated 27 September 2023
passed in Writ Petition No.14371 of 2022, to the extent
of availability of remedy of revision before the State
Government, are recalled.
(iii) It is clarified that Revision against an order passed by
the Deputy Registrar/District Deputy Registrar, while
exercising powers of Registrar conferred under Section
3 of the MCS Act without reference /approval of
Registrar shall lie before the Divisional Joint Registrar.
(iv) Accordingly, the Revision against the Order dated 16
July 2024 shall lie before the Divisional Joint Registrar.
(v) To above limited extent, Review Petition (Stamp)
No.29430 of 2025 is allowed.
(vi) Writ Petition No.2009 of 2025 is dismissed by
upholding the order dated 22 January 2025 passed by
the Divisional Joint Registrar.
(vii) The Divisional Joint Registrar is requested to
expedite the decision of revision and to make an
endeavour to decide the same as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of four months.
36) With the above directions, both the proceedings and the Interim
Application are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Page No.26 of 27
15 July 2026
Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt
37) After the judgment is pronounced, learned counsel appearing
for the Writ Petitioner prays for extension of ad-interim relief granted
during the pendency of the Petition. The request is opposed by the
learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner. In view of the
observations made in the judgment, I am not inclined to continue the
interim order. The request is accordingly rejected.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab Page No.27 of 27
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 15 July 2026
Date: 15/07/2026 19:29:36
