Bombay HC: Deputy Registrar Cannot Reopen Rejected CHS Bifurcation Case

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot reopen proceedings on a housing society bifurcation proposal that was already rejected, simply because the officer who passed the original order was later transferred. The order, passed by Justice Sandeep Marne, came in a petition filed by Shiv Shopping Centre Co-operative Housing Society in Andheri and its secretary.

What happened

Seventeen commercial unit owners in the society had sought to split off into a separate society while the existing society was undergoing redevelopment. After hearings, the Deputy Registrar rejected the bifurcation proposal in a detailed order dated April 21, 2026. Following the officer's transfer, his successor issued a fresh hearing notice, claiming the matter had only been 'closed for orders' and needed fresh adjudication. The society challenged this fresh notice in the High Court.

What the court held

The court held that the April 21 communication was a formal 'order' rejecting the bifurcation, not a mere procedural remark that could be revisited. It clarified that under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, a Registrar must consult the Housing Federation only after deciding to proceed with bifurcation and preparing a draft scheme — not automatically upon receiving a proposal. Since the proposal had already been rejected, no such consultation was required. The court described the successor officer's attempt to reopen the case as an exercise of review power the Deputy Registrar does not possess, calling it 'unfortunate' that a detailed 16-page order was treated as a mere note, and criticised the officer for making incorrect statements on oath.

What this means for housing societies

• A Registrar's or Deputy Registrar's order rejecting or approving a proposal is final at that level — a successor officer cannot revive or reverse it without statutory authority.
• Societies dealing with bifurcation, redevelopment, or other Registrar-level proposals should treat a written rejection or approval order as binding, not open to informal reconsideration after a staff transfer.
• If a society or member disagrees with such an order, the correct route is a statutory appeal, not a request to the successor officer to 'reopen' the file.
• Managing committees facing similar administrative overreach can cite this ruling to resist attempts to relitigate settled Registrar decisions.

The court left the door open for the commercial unit owners to pursue a statutory appeal against the April 21 rejection order, while keeping the merits of the bifurcation question itself undecided.