Bombay HC Cancels Society Deregistration, Warns Against Casual Use of Section 21A Power

The Bombay High Court has allowed Writ Petition No. 9824 of 2016 filed by Nutan Sayali Cooperative Housing Society against the State of Maharashtra, quashing an order that had directed the society's deregistration. The judgment is dated 6 October 2026 and was reported on 20 October 2026.

What the case was about

The society was registered on 17 November 1995 on a proposal by purchasers of units on Plots No. 2 and 3. An individual who had signed that proposal and later became chairman applied under Section 21A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, claiming the society had been meant only for Plot No. 3. The Divisional Joint Registrar rejected the application in November 2012, finding no misrepresentation. In March 2014, the Minister allowed an appeal and ordered deregistration, giving as the only reason that Plot No. 2 was not shown in the registration application.

What the court held

The High Court called the omission of Plot No. 2 in the registration statement a mere inadvertence, not an actionable misrepresentation. It relied on an earlier ruling, Auram Avenue Co-op Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, which held that a mere error in registration is not a ground for the drastic power of deregistration under Section 21A. The court noted the challenger pressed for deregistration after 19 years, and said a stern message was needed so that Section 21A is not exercised casually and routinely. It ordered exemplary costs against him; the report does not state the amount.

What this means for housing societies

• Section 21A allows deregistration only where registration was obtained by misrepresentation; clerical or descriptive errors in the original application do not, by themselves, qualify.
• Long delay in challenging a registration weighs against the person who challenges it, even if that person was a founder or office bearer.
• Societies facing a deregistration application should keep the original registration proposal, Statement B and Registrar correspondence ready, and can challenge adverse appellate orders before the High Court by writ petition.
• Members who sign a registration proposal may find it hard to later argue that its contents were wrong.

The report is based on an excerpt of the judgment and does not give the bench or the costs figure. Societies relying on this ruling should read the full judgment or consult a lawyer before acting.