Mumbai, August 5, 2026: The Bombay High Court has held that a Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot reopen proceedings rejecting a proposal to bifurcate a housing society merely because the officer who passed the original order was transferred.
Justice Sandeep Marne set aside a June 1, 2026 communication issued by the Deputy Registrar seeking to reopen proceedings relating to the proposed bifurcation of Shiv Shopping Centre Co-operative Housing Society in Andheri.
The court held that the proposal had already been rejected through a detailed order dated April 21, 2026, and that the successor officer had no power to review or reconsider it.
Shiv Shopping Centre Co-operative Housing Society in Andheri | File Photo
Bifurcation Proposal Rejected
The dispute arose after 17 commercial unit owners sought division of the society into a separate society while the existing society was undergoing redevelopment. After several hearings, the Deputy Registrar rejected the proposal in April.
However, following the officer's transfer, his successor issued a fresh notice for hearing, stating that the matter had only been "closed for orders" and required fresh adjudication.
The petition was filed by Shiv Shopping Centre Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and its secretary, challenging the Deputy Registrar's decision to reopen the bifurcation proceedings.
The society argued that the proposal had already been rejected on April 21, 2026, after several hearings and that the successor officer had no authority to revive the matter by issuing a fresh notice.
Court's Findings
The court ruled that the April 21 communication was an order rejecting the bifurcation proposal and not merely an opinion or remark.
"What is done by the Deputy Registrar on April 21, 2026, is passing of an 'order' rejecting the proposal for bifurcation," Justice Marne said.
Explaining the legal procedure under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the court held that consultation with the Housing Federation is required only after the Registrar decides to proceed with bifurcation by preparing a draft scheme. Since the proposal had already been rejected, there was no occasion to seek the Federation's views.
"The Registrar needs to first apply his mind to the proposal… He cannot act as a mere postman and call for opinion of the Federal Society immediately upon receipt of proposal for bifurcation," the court observed.
Successor Officer Criticised
Coming down heavily on the successor officer, the court said reopening the proceedings amounted to exercising a power of review, which the Deputy Registrar does not possess.
"What is done by the new incoming officer… is an action unknown to law," the court said, adding that it was "unfortunate" that a detailed 16-page order was treated as a mere procedural note. It also deprecated the officer's "enthusiasm" in reopening closed proceedings and making "incorrect statements on oath" in the affidavit filed before the court.
Also Watch:
The High Court clarified that the commercial unit owners are free to pursue their statutory appeal against the April 21 order, while keeping all issues relating to the merits of the bifurcation proposal open.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
