Mumbai: Bombay High Court has rapped the deputy registrar, cooperative societies (K-West ward), for reopening proceedings on June 1 over bifurcating a housing society in Andheri West after a proposal was already rejected by his predecessor.Justice Sandeep Marne in Tuesday’s verdict said merely because the officer who passed the April 21 order got transferred, “the same did not give any authority to the successor officer to undertake re-adjudication of the proceedings. What is done by the new incoming officer on the post of deputy registrar is an action unknown to law.”Shiv Shopping Centre CHSL comprises 63 residences and 28 shops. Seventeen shop owners sought the society’s bifurcation. In a Nov 2025 general body meeting, the majority voted against it as it would disrupt ongoing redevelopment. On April 21, the deputy registrar in a “detailed and reasoned” 16-page order rejected the 17 members’ proposal, saying it is not appropriate to divide the society. He sent the order to Mumbai District Housing Federation for its opinion. His successor on June 1, stating that the bifurcation proposal was “closed for orders,” issued notices for a hearing on June 8. He also sought the federation’s opinion. On June 16, HC stayed further hearings.Senior advocate Birendra Saraf for two members argued that the April 21 communication was the deputy registrar’s “remarks” and not an “order,” rejecting the proposal. But Justice Marne noted that the successor officer, in his affidavit, “himself admitted” his predecessor had rejected the proposal subject to obtaining the federation’s opinion. The judge said rejection cannot be subject to federation’s opinion. He agreed with the society’s advocate Mayur Khandeparkar that after rejection, calling for the federation’s opinion was unnecessary. Only if the registrar prepares a draft scheme for bifurcation, the federation’s opinion is to be sought.Justice Marne said the predecessor deputy registrar had rejected the proposal at the “threshold” and had not deemed it necessary to prepare a draft scheme as he had formed an opinion against bifurcation. Therefore, he had passed the April 21 “order” rejecting the proposal, the judge concluded. He further said the successor seeking to re-adjudicate the rejected bifurcation proposal “is like exercising the power of review which the deputy registrar does not possess.” “This court deprecates the enthusiasm exhibited by the (successor) deputy registrar,” he added. Setting aside the June 1 communication, he said the 17 members are free to prosecute their appeal against the April 21 order.
