Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME
Parties : Man Taluka Kharedi Vikri Sangh Maryadit Dahiwadi, Through its Director / Authorised Representative Sudam Baburao Narnvar Versus The State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Co-operation Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: S.S. Patwardhan, a/w Arjun Mohite, i/b Kirankumar Phakade, Advocates. For the Respondents: Sanjay D. Rayrikar, APG, Akshay Shinde, ‘B’ Panel Counsel, Ashutosh A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate.
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. Heard matter finally as there is exigency in the matter.
2. The petitioner, cooperative society has assailed the order dated 12.08.2026 passed by Respondent no.4 - Assistant Registrar, appointing Administrator by invoking powers under Section 77A(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as Act for the sake of brevity) and the order dated 19.08.2026 passed in Appeal No. 91 of 2026 refusing to grant stay to the operation and execution of order of appointment of Administrator.
3. This Court on 24.09.2026 granted interim relief of staying the implementation of impugned order dated 12.08.2026 and restraining the Respondent no. 4 - Administrator, from taking over charge of the petitioner society. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, has urged to either vacate the ad-interim relief or to hear the matter finally considering the involvement of the issues of public importance. It is pointed out that once the term of elected Committee or its Office bearer is over and there is non-compliance of the statutory requirement of Section 73CB (14) of the Act, the outgoing body ceases to hold the office automatically. The statutory provisions in this regard are either not brought to the notice of the Court or misconstrued in permitting the outgoing body to continue to hold the Office.
4. The misconception of law has created problems in many cooperative societies in the State of Maharashtra. I propose to adjudicate the issue as it has repercussions over the cooperative movement, the administration and conducting of the elections of the societies.
5. Following are the undisputed facts in the matter.
(i) The term of the petitioner society expired on 17.10.2022.
(ii) Letter was issued by the petitioner on 09.11.2022 informing expiry of the term.
(iii) The letter dated 11.11.2025 was addressed by respondent no.3 - Assistant Registrar calling upon the petitioner to submit the voters list.
(iv) The order dated 15.06.2026 was issued by the Secretary, State Election Commission Authority to set into motion the election process for the petitioner.
(v) Letter dated 17.07.2026 was addressed by the Secretary, State Election Commission Authority to respondent no.3 - Assistant Registrar to suspend the process of election of the petitioner.
(vi) The petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 6543 of 2026 soliciting vacation of the stay which was disposed of with a direction on 30.07.2026.
(vii) The petitioner made representation dated 14.08.2026 as per the directions issued by Division Bench in above referred matter.
(viii) The respondent no.3 - Assistant Registrar passed order on 12.08.2026 appointing respondent no. 4 - Administrator under Section 77A-1(b) of the Act.
(ix) Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Appeal No. 91 of 2026 before the respondent no.2 - Divisional Joint Registrar, along with application for stay on 14.08.2026.
(x) The application for stay was rejected by respondent no.2 vide impugned order dated 19.08.2026.
6. The petitioner filed additional affidavit bringing certain documents on record, disclosing that on 31.03.2022 an application was sent by the petitioner to Secretary, State Cooperative Election Authority, District Cooperative Election Officer, Assistant Registrar cum Taluka Co-operative Election Officer. The photocopy of extract of outward register is also annexed to it. It is contended that the communication was made before expiry of the term which was not responded by the respondents and no timely steps were taken. The documents are disputed by the respondents. The original register is produced by the petitioner during the course of hearing. The respondents also produced inward register of the office of Assistant Registrar to show that even the communication dated 09.11.2022 was not received by it.
7. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, I find that following points need to be addressed.
(i) Whether the term of elected members of the committee and its office bearers can be said to have been continued till new committee is duly constituted as per proviso to Section 73AAA(3) of the Act?
(ii) Whether there is violation of principles of natural justice in passing order dated 12.08.2026 appointing Administrator under Section 77A (1)(b)?
(iii) Whether there is compliance of Section 73CB(14) of the Act?
(iv) Whether impugned orders are sustainable ?
(i) Whether the term of elected members of the committee and its office bearers can be said to have been continued till new committee is duly constituted as per proviso to Section 73AAA(3) of the Act?
8. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Kumbhakoni, has expressed grave concern for the misconception in respect of the continuation of the outgoing elected bodies whose terms are over in many cooperative societies in the state of Maharashtra. He would submit that the term of the cooperative society is for five years as per Section 73AAA(3). It is mandated by Section 73CB(14) that the outgoing committee of every cooperative society should inform the election authority about expiry of its term at least six months before the date of expiry, which is frequently not done and the outgoing committee claims to have been continued, which is against the mandate of democratic principles. It is vehemently submitted that as per Section 73-I(2) failure to comply Section 73CB (14) results in automatic cessation of the term. It is further submitted that the mandate of Section 73AAA(3) and proviso thereto is misconstrued to remain in power, under the pretext of not holding election for various reasons. It is vehemently submitted that non-compliance of Section 73CB(14) is a fault exclusively attributable to the outgoing committee and proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 73AAA would not help such a defaulting societies. It is further submitted that in the absence of the compliance to Section 73CB(14) would culminate into appointment of Administrator. It is further contended that the correspondence made by the cooperative societies after expiry of term would be inconsequential and would not save them from appointment of Administrator as contemplated by 77A (1) (b).
9. The submissions canvassed above have not been specifically repelled by Learned Counsel Mr. S. S. Patwardhan appearing for the respondents. The fulcrum of his submission is that the correspondence made on 31.03.2022 is the sufficient compliance of Section 73CB(14) and there is a violation of principles of natural justice in appointing Administrator over the petitioner society.
10. It is necessary to refer to the mandatory statutory duty imposed upon the outgoing committee. As per Section 73AAA(3) the term of the office of the elected members of the committee and its office bearer would be of five years from the date of election and the term of the office bearers would be co-terminus with the term of the committee. The following significant mandatory duties is imposed by the statute.
Sec. 73CB
“(14) The committee of every co-operative society shall, - (a) inform the State Co-operative Election Authority about the expiry of its term of office at-least six months before the date of expiry of such term;
(b) inform any casual vacancy occurred in the committee or its office bearers, within fifteen days of the occurrence of such vacancy;
(c) furnish such books, records and information as the State Co-operative Election Authority may require as per the calendar specified by the State Co-operative Election Authority;
(d) provide all necessary help, assistance and co-operation for the smooth preparation of electoral rolls for the conduct of elections.”
11. It is further reiterated by the following provision :-
“73I. Responsibility of committee or the Administrators or authorised officer to intimate and assist to arrange for election, before expiry of term - (1) As provided under sub-section (14) of section 73CB, it shall be the duty of the committee to intimate to the State Co-operative Election Authority, for holding of its election, before expiry of its/term.
(2) Where there is a wilful failure on the part of the committee to intimate to the State Co-operative Election Authority as required under sub-section (1) for holding of its election, and for any reason whatsoever, election of the members of the committee could not be held before the expiry of its term then the members thereof shall cease to hold their office and in such a situation the Registrar shall take action as contemplated under section 77A.
(3) On taking such action-under-sub-section (2), the authorised officer so appointed shall intimate to the State Co-operative Election Authority for holding of the election with immediate effect and assist to make necessary arrangement for holding such election within the period specified.”
12. Thus, there is no dispute for the legal proposition that every outgoing elected committee or its member has a duty as contemplated by Section 73CB (14) and 73-I(2) to inform expiry of the terms within time. The non-compliance would culminate into taking drastic step of appointment of Administrator as contemplated by the following provision:-
“77A. [Appointment of member of committee, new committee or authorised officers, where there is failure to elect member, to constitute committee or where committee does not enter upon office, etc.] (1) Where the Registrar is satisfied that -
[(1-a) a provisional committee has failed to make necessary arrangements for holding election for the constitution of the first committee, before the expiry of its term as specified in sub-section (14) of section 73;]
(a) at the first constitution of the committee of any society there is a failure to elect all or any of the members of the committee;
(b) the term of the committee of any society or of any of its members has expired or for any other reason election is held and there is a failure to elect all or any of the members required to fill the vacancies;”
(b-1) there is s stalemate in the constitution or committee has ceased to function and vacuum is created in the management;
(c) any committee is prevented from entering upon office;
(d) a new committee has failed to enter upon office on the date on which the term of office of the existing committee expired; or
3[Clause (e) was deleted by Mah 34 of 2001, S.7]
[(f) where more than one group of persons in a society is claiming to be elected as the committee members and proceedings in respect thereof have been filed in the Co-operatives Court;]
The Registrar may, either suo motu or [on the application of any officer or member of the society], by order appoint -
(i) any member or members of the society to be the member or members of the committee to fill the vacancies;
(ii) a committee, consisting of not more than three members of the society, or "[one or more authorised officers], who need not be members of the society, to manage the affairs of the society till a new committee enters upon office:
Provided that, before making such order, the Registrar shall publish a notice on the notice board at the head office of the society, inviting objections and suggestions with respect to the proposed order within a period specified in the notice and consider all objections and suggestions received by him within that period:
Provided further that, it shall not be necessary to publish such notice in any case where Registrar is satisfied that immediate action is required to be taken or that it is not reasonably practical to publish such notice:
[This proviso was deleted by Mah. 28 of 2022, S.10(l)]
(2) The Committee or [authorised officer] so appointed shall, subject to the control of the Registrar and to such instructions as he may, from time to time, give, have power to discharge all or any of the functions of the committee or of any officer of the society, and take all such action as may be required to be taken in the interests of the society.
[(3) The Committee or [authorised officer] so appointed shall hold office for a period of [twelve months) from the date of assuming the management of the society and shall make necessary arrangements for constituting a new committee within the said period and for enabling the new committee including any new committee referred to in clause (f) of sub-section (1), which is determined by the Court to have been legally elected, to enter upon office:]”
13. The combined reading of above sections would indicate that if mandatory steps are not taken by the outgoing committee, the competent Authority is obliged to appoint the Administrator so as to take over the administration. The outgoing committee or its office bearers are not empowered to remain in power. Their cessation of the term is automatic and no order is required to be passed to that effect. Any correspondence made by such a defaulting committee or its office bearers is inconsequential. The defaulting committee or its office bearers can not claim continuation in office. Reliance is placed on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of Gopikrishnan Appadurai Madaliar Vs. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 5162 of 2026, decided on 05.05.2026). It is relevant to produce following observations:-
“6. On a simple and plain reading of Section 73-I, it becomes clear that before the expiry of the term of the committee, as contemplated under sub-section (14) of Section 73CB, the managing committee is under a legal duty to intimate the State Co-operative Election Authority for the purpose of conducting elections in time. This requirement is mandatory in nature. If such intimation is not given, and election is not held before expiry of the term for any reason, then the statute itself provides consequence. The members of the committee cease to hold office. This cessation is automatic. It does not depend on further declaration. In such situation, the Registrar is expected to step in and take action under Section 77A. The scheme shows that continuation of committee beyond its term is not permitted unless specifically saved by law.”
The submissions of learned Senior Counsel Mr. Kumbhakoni are well-founded and need to be accepted.
14. There is frequent misconception in interpreting proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 73AAA which is as under.
“73AAA. Constitution of committee. --
(1) ……..
(2) …….
(3) The term of the office of the elected members of the committee and its office bearers shall be five years from the date of election and the term of the office bearers shall be co-terminus with the term of the committee [and on the expiry of the term of the committee, the members shall be deemed to have vacated their offices as members of the committee).
[Provided that, if the term of office of the elected members of the committee and its office bearers has expired, and if the election to the committee of the society could not be held due to [* *] the orders issued by the Government, from time to time, or any reason not attributable to the members of the committee of the society, such members and office bearers of the committee shall be deemed to have continued as members and office bearers of the committee till new committee is duly constituted:]
[[Provided further that], if the election to the Committee of the society could not be held for any reason not attributable to the members of the Committee of such Society, the existing members of the Committee shall be deemed to have continued till new committee is duly constituted.]”
15. The proviso of sub-section (3), absolves the elected members of the committee and its office bearers if the elections are not conducted due to the orders issued by the Government or any other reason not attributable to them and then they are entitled to be continued as members till new committee is duly constituted. Thus, the words used, "or any reason not attributed to the members of the committee of the society" used in proviso needs to be interpreted and understood in the teeth of Section 73CB (14) and 73-I(2). The non-compliance of statutory mandatory duty amounts to fault attributable to the outgoing committee or its members, having repercussions of taking over of the Management. I do not find that there is any inconsistency in the proviso of sub-section (3) of Section 73AAA and the provisions of 73CB(14) or 73-I(2). The harmonious interpretation of above provisions would evolve unequivocal legal position as follows.
(i) The outgoing committee or its member has a mandatory duty to intimate expiry of its term before six months.
(ii) The non-compliance of above referred statutory duty results in automatic cessation of the term without reference to any order or the proceeding.
(iii) The automatic cessation of the Office would culminate into appointment of administrator and taking over of the management by implication of Section 77A(1)(b).
(iv) Once there is automatic cessation, any orders passed by the Government for not conducting further elections would not give any leverage to outgoing committee to remain in office or to make correspondence for holding elections.
16. I find substance in the submissions advanced by learned Senior Counsel, Mr. A.A. Kumbhkoni. Thus, concern expressed by him is appreciated, and therefore, I have endeavored to frame and decide the issue holding that once the term of the elected committee or its member is expired, and there is automatic cessation of the office due to non-compliance of Section 73CB14 and 73-I(2), the committee or its member are not entitled to any leverage of continuation till new committee is duly constituted.
(ii) Whether there is violation of principles of natural justice in passing order dated 12.08.2026 appointing Administrator under Section 77A (1) (b)?
17. The learned counsel Mr. S.S. Patwardhan submits that no notice was issued to the petitioner and no opportunity was given before appointing Administrator by the impugned order. As there is violation of principles of natural justice, this Court can independently examine validity of the order albeit appeal against it is pending before the respondent no.2. It is further submitted that the procedure as contemplated by Section 77-A(1)(b) has not been complied with, which has caused great prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner could have disclosed the compliance of Section 73CB (14).
18. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Kumbhakoni would submit that it is not mandatory to comply the principles of natural justice and those are dispensed with in the given facts and circumstances. It is submitted that the petitioner has failed to show any prejudice caused to it due to automatic cessation of terms. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh and Ors. (2021) 19 SCC 706.
19. It is necessary to see first as to whether the principles of natural justice can be said to be embodied in Section 77A-1(b). It can be gathered from the provision that a mechanism is provided for appointment of member of the Committee or new Committee or Authorized Officer under certain circumstances. The Registrar has to have satisfaction for existence of the circumstances stated in sub-section 1(b). The appointment of authorized officer can be set into motion by suo motu action of Registrar or on application of any officer or member of the society. The first proviso shows that a notice is required to be published on board inviting objections and suggestions in respect to proposed order and those should be considered within a period specified. The plain reading of Section 77A(1)(b) would indicate opportunity of hearing and consideration the objections of the stake holders before appointing the Arbitrator. The second proviso empowers the Registrar to dispense with the notice if it is satisfied that immediate action is required to be taken or that it is not reasonable and practicable to publish the notice. The normal rule is to invite the objections and decide them and the exception is existence of situation where there is requirement of immediate action or practicable difficulty to publish the said notice. I find that it is mandatory to follow the principles of natural justice before taking drastic action against any society.
20. My attention is adverted to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Singh (supra). Following principles are culled out in the judgment which are relied upon by the respondent.
“42. An analysis of the aforesaid judgments thus reveals:
42.1. Natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the judiciary to reach out in fit cases to remedy injustice. The breach of the audi alteram partem rule cannot by itself, without more, lead to the conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused.
42.2. Where procedural and/or substantive provisions of law embody the principles of natural justice, their infraction per se does not lead to invalidity of the orders passed. Here again, prejudice must be caused to the litigant, except in the case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest, but also in public interest.
42.3. No prejudice is caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural justice where such person does not dispute the case against him or it. This can happen by reason of estoppel, acquiescence, waiver and by way of non-challenge or non-denial or admission of facts, in cases in which the Court finds on facts that no real prejudice can therefore be said to have been caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural justice.
42.4. In cases where facts can be stated to be admitted or indisputable, and only one conclusion is possible, the Court does not pass futile orders of setting aside or remand when there is, in fact, no prejudice caused. This conclusion must be drawn by the Court on an appraisal of the facts of a case, and not by the authority who denies natural justice to a person.
42.5. The "prejudice" exception must be more than a mere apprehension or even a reasonable suspicion of a litigant. It should exist as a matter of fact, or be based upon a definite inference of likelihood of prejudice flowing from the non-observance of natural justice.”
21. The appointment of the Arbitrator is a drastic action in case of the cooperative society of which the terms of the Committee is over and there is noncompliance of Section 73CB(14). The extending opportunity of hearing is required. The petitioner's society is stated to have committed default in not issuing the notice intimating expiry of the terms before six months of the due date of expiry. The petitioner has come up with a case that on 31.03.2022 the necessary correspondence was made which was not responded to. No objective scrutiny is conducted which is evident from the order dated 12.08.2026.
22. I have already observed that if the term of the cooperative society is over and no fault is attributable to the Committee or its members, then it is statutory right to be continued by implication of proviso to Section 73AAA(3). The valuable statutory right of the outgoing committee or its members cannot be taken away without hearing them. Thus, purport of embodying principles of natural justice is to ensure democratic and autonomous functioning of the society. I find that the prejudice caused to the society is apparent and it is in public as well as private interest. I am unable to approve the submissions of Mr. Kumbhakoni in this regard. As there is violation of principles of natural justice, this Court has the power to delve upon the order dated 12.08.2026, albeit pendency of Appeal No. 91 of 2026. I therefore, answer this issue in favour of the petitioner.
(iii) Whether there is compliance of Section 73CB(14) of the Act?
23. Both parties have rival claims for compliance of Section 73CB (14) which is a mandatory requirement. In the additional affidavit, a copy of letter dated 31.03.2022 and the extract of outward register are produced by the petitioner. The respondents have denied to have received any such a correspondence. I have gone through original registered shown to me during the course of hearing. It is vehemently contended by the respondents that the documents produced by the petitioner are forged and maneuvered. My attention is adverted to the memo of the petition and memo of Appeal No. 91 of 2026 to corroborate that the letter dated 31.03.2022 has not been referred in any of the proceedings.
24. I have gone through memo of the writ petition as well as Appeal No. 91 of 2026. It is the case of the petitioner that letter dated 09.11.2022 was issued, which was the intimation given to the competent authorities regarding expiry of the terms. It is undisputed that the term of the committee and its members was over on 17.10.2022. The letter dated 09.11.2022 cannot be said to be compliance of Section 73CB(14). Such a correspondence made by it was inconsequential. But at the same time, it cannot be overlooked that first impugned order was passed on 12.08.2026. Being aggrieved, appeal was preferred along with application for stay on or about 14.08.2026. The application for stay was rejected on 19.08.2026. The petition is presented seeking urgent relief on 21.08.2026. Ad-interim relief was granted on 24.09.2026. No sufficient time was available to collect the document and to file them before Appellate Authority and thereafter in High Court with appropriate pleading. The justification given by the petitioner in the additional affidavit can not be discarded.
25. I have already observed that order dated 12.08.2026 is violative of principles of natural justice. Had the opportunity been given, the petitioner would have disclosed the necessary compliance. Under these circumstances, no benefit would enure to the respondents for not disclosing the letter dated 31.03.2022 in the earlier pleadings.
26. The letter dated 31.03.2022 is addressed to the State Cooperative Election Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune. The copies are marked to District Election Officer and Assistant Registrar. The acknowledgment of the Assistant Registrar shows date of 31.03.2022. The original register produced from the office of Assistant Registrar, Dahiwadi does not show any inward entry of the letter. I am of the considered view that the correspondence to the Assistant Registrar is not mandatory, and therefore, absence of inward entry will be of no assistance to the respondents.
27. I have carefully examined the original register produced by the petitioner showing outward entries of 31.03.2024. I do not find that the register is maneuvered. The mentioning of Rs.5/- as a stamp in the last but one column would not belie the petitioner's theory. The register appears to have been maintained in regular course. The outward entry nos. 33 to 35 would indicate communication made by the petitioner, which is adequate compliance of Section 73CB(14). As against that, no document is produced by the respondents to show that the correspondence dated 31.03.2022 was responded. No action is taken by the authority after receiving the intimation as contemplated by the statute. I find that the issue needs to be answered in favor of the petitioner.
(iv) Whether impugned orders are sustainable?
28. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that impugned order dated 12.08.2026 is passed without assigning reasons. It is further submitted that the drastic action should not have been resorted to when other options are available. It is further stated that there is a political intervention and therefore impugned orders are passed. It is submitted that due to order of refusing stay in Appeal No. 91 of 2026, appeal would become infructuous. It is urged that instead of relegating party to the appellate authority, this court itself would pass the necessary orders and decide the challenge raised to those orders.
29. Per contra, learned counsel, Mr. Kumbhakoni submits that appeal is still pending and the validity of the first impugned order can be tested before the appellate authority. The writ petition itself is not maintainable because neither the cooperative society nor its committee has a locus to challenge the impugned orders.
30. The order dated 12.08.2026 shows only reason for appointment of respondent no.4. - officer as Administrator is the expiry of the term of the committee. No reasons are assigned as to why the normal procedure of extending opportunity of hearing is dispensed with. No reasons are assigned to show any exigency or practical difficulty in complying the issuance of notice to the stakeholders. The order is further silent on the aspect as to why directly recourse is taken in appointing authorized officer bypassing the appointment of member of committee or new committee. Under these circumstances, I find that the drastic action has been taken against the petitioner in utter disregard to the statutory procedure.
31. In this context, the reliance on the judgment of coordinate bench in case of Vijay Lakhi and Ors. vs. Minister of Cooperation and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 11625 of 2025 decided on 06.10.2025) is relevant. In that case, the term of the managing committee was of eight members, and out of them, four had resigned, reducing the committee below the required quorum. The Administrator was appointed by exercising powers under Section 77A of the Act. The judgment is cited to buttress that no recourse can be taken to the last safeguard of appointing authorized officer directly, and that too without assigning reasons. It is relevant to produce following observations.
“Clause (ii) of Section 77A(1):
31. Clause (ii) of Section 77A(1) applies when the problem is more serious than a few vacant seats. This happens when the managing committee as a whole cannot function. Examples include a situation where the term of the committee has expired but the new committee has not taken charge, or where there is a deadlock and the committee has ceased to function, or where disputes between groups have paralysed the management. In such cases, the society cannot continue with its regular business through the elected body.
32. To deal with such a situation, the Registrar is empowered to form a small temporary committee of not more than three members from within the society. This ensures that the society continues to be run by its own members, even if on a temporary basis. The idea is that external control should be avoided as far as possible, and preference should always be given to members themselves to manage their affairs.
"One or more authorised officers' of Section 77A(1):
35. The expression 'one or more authorised officers' of Section 77A(1) is the last and most drastic option. It comes into play only when neither clause (i) nor clause (ii) can work. This is when members of the society are unwilling, unable, or unsuitable to manage the society, or when rival groups are fighting such that no internal committee can function fairly. In such cases, the Registrar is allowed to appoint one or more authorised officers, who may even be outsiders, to run the affairs of the society for a limited period.
37. The purpose of the expression 'one or more authorised officers' is therefore to act as a last safeguard. It ensures that even if the elected committee has collapsed and members are unable to run the society, the business of the society does not stop. But at the same time, it recognises that bringing in outsiders goes against the co-operative principle of self-governance. Hence, this measure is to be used sparingly, and only when all other options fail.
38. In my considered opinion authorised officers are to be appointed only as a last resort, and such appointments must remain free from internal politics of the society. Therefore, while the law does not absolutely prohibit appointment of a minority elected member under the expression 'one or more authorised officers', it is a course that should be avoided except in very rare cases where impartiality and eligibility can be clearly established by way producing unimpeachable documents on record.
39. Read together, these three clauses create a graded system. Clause (i) is for minor problems, clause (ii) for serious but manageable situations, and the expression 'one or more authorised officers' for extreme cases where no other solution is possible. This step-by-step approach shows the Legislature's intention that co-operative societies should, as far as possible, remain in the hands of their own members, and outside control should be exercised only when absolutely necessary.
58. The consequences of this deletion are important. The Registrar can no longer appoint outsiders only on the ground that members are unwilling. That stand-alone basis has been taken away. Outsiders may still be appointed under the expression 'one or more authorised officers' of Section 77A, but only after showing that clause (ii) or other internal remedies are not workable. Now, before bringing outsiders, the Registrar must record clear reasons, such as collapse of quorum, deep factional disputes, or impossibility of internal management. Superior authorities under the Act will examine more carefully whether the Registrar had proper material to justify appointment of outsiders. If the Registrar cannot show necessity, such appointments can be struck down. If appointments were made after 28 March 2022 relying on the deleted proviso, their validity can be questioned. Even appointments made earlier may be tested on whether the Registrar acted fairly or misused the discretion.
59. The deletion of the third proviso narrows the circumstances in which outsiders can be appointed. It ensures that societies remain primarily in the hands of their members, in line with the constitutional goal of democratic functioning of co-operatives. Appointment of outsiders is now a measure of last resort, to be justified with strong reasons, and subject to strict judicial control.”
32. I have no hesitation in concurring with the observations and the ratio laid down by the coordinate bench. In the present case also, the respondents authorities totally defied the statutory provision and arbitrarily appointed Administrator. The judgment is rightly cited by the petitioner.
33. This court has elaborately dealt with the submissions regarding principles of natural justice, non-compliance of statutory procedure and unreasoned impugned orders. Under these circumstances, there is no point in relegating the parties to the appellate forum. The petitioner has also challenged the order of appointment of Administrator as it is against the principles of natural justice and de hors the procedure of law. I answer the last question in favor of the petitioner. In sequitur of the above analysis, I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) Rule is made absolutely in terms of prayer clause (a).
(ii) Appeal No. 91 of 2026 pending before Divisional Joint Registrar, Kolhapur shall stand disposed of.
