Headnote:
The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision to set aside an order by the State of Maharashtra that had allowed the registration of new Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies (PACCS). The State’s order had overturned the findings of a Scrutiny Committee, which rejected the registration applications due to non-fulfillment of economic viability criteria, including the mandatory minimum share capital requirement stipulated by Government Resolutions issued under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
The Court held that economic viability is a pre-requisite for the registration of a co-operative society under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. The Scrutiny Committee, an expert body established under government policy, correctly found the proposed societies financially non-viable. The State government, while deciding an appeal, cannot ignore these basic criteria laid down by its own binding Government Resolutions, nor can it exercise its discretion to relax such conditions in a manner that frustrates the object of the Act. Any relaxation of established eligibility standards must be through a formal Government Resolution, not an ad-hoc decision in an appeal. The argument regarding the locus standi of the original writ petitioner (Respondent No. 6) does not bar judicial interference when there is patent illegality in the State’s order.
1. Case Number:
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4090 of 2024)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6551/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6086/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) 6262/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 10032/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6619/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6535/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6308/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 4808/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6324/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6499/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6493/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6065/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 4926/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 10030/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5423/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5008/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5862/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 9579/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6264/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6168/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6475/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5430/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6360/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5298/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 4929/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5062/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6274/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6621/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5598/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5341/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5385/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5345/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5315/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 7714/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 7722/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 10031/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6222/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5564/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5027/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5312/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6275/2024)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ____ OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5314/2024)
2. Case Title: SHRI. MASAIDEVI VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI SEVA SANSTHA MARYADIT WAREWADI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
3. Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
4. SCR Citation: Not Mentioned
5. Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 436
6. Judgment Authored by: Hon’ble Justice Prasanna B. Varale*
7. Date of Judgment: April 2, 2025
8. Case Start Date: 2024 (Year of filing of the lead Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4090 of 2024. Leave was granted, as mentioned in Para 1 of the judgment, before conversion to Civil Appeal).
9. Case Arising From: The present appeals challenged the common order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 8654/2023 and 42 other connected matters. The High Court had allowed the petitions preferred by Respondent No. 6 (a member of an existing co-operative society) and others, and set aside the orders passed by the State of Maharashtra (Minister, Co-operatives). The State’s order had allowed the registration of the appellant-societies by overturning a decision of the Scrutiny Committee which had initially rejected their registration applications on grounds of financial non-viability. The relief sought from the High Court was the quashing of the State’s order that permitted the registration of new societies.
10. Parties Involved:
- Appellant(s): SHRI. MASAIDEVI VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAHAKARI SEVA SANSTHA MARYADIT WAREWADI (and other appellant-societies in connected appeals).
- Respondent(s): THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (Respondent No. 6, a member of Salashi Vividh Karyakari Sahakari (Vikas) Seva Saunstha Maryadit Salashi, was the original writ petitioner before the High Court).
11. Disposal Nature: Appeals dismissed.
12. Case Type: CIVIL APPEAL (arising from SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL))
13. Law Type: Co-operative Societies Law, Administrative Law.
14. Judges (Assent/Dissent):
- Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath (Assented)
- Hon’ble Justice Prasanna B. Varale (Authored the judgment, Assented)
No dissenting opinions were recorded.
16. Background and Facts:
The appellant-society applied on 13.01.2023 for registration as a new Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society (PACCS). A Scrutiny Committee rejected this application on 13.04.2023, citing reasons such as non-verification of the proposed society’s area within an existing society’s purview, lack of information on promoters’ membership in other societies, unverified crop-wise cultivated area, absence of an undertaking from Kolhapur District Central Co-operative Bank for loan provision, no NOC from the existing society, missing 7/12 extracts for loan assessment, and importantly, the assessment that the proposed society would not be financially viable, especially since the existing society in the operational area was itself not financially robust.
Aggrieved, the appellant-society appealed to the State (Minister, Co-operatives). Respondent No. 6, a member of an existing co-operative society (Salashi Vividh Karyakari Sahakari (Vikas) Seva Saunstha Maryadit Salashi), was impleaded. The Minister, on 28.06.2023, allowed the appeal, set aside the Committee’s order, and directed registration of the appellant-society. The Minister reasoned that the society was for an independent revenue village, the existing society hadn’t objected, the new society could undertake 152 types of businesses, and transportation was difficult in the hilly area.
Respondent No. 6 challenged the Minister’s order in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay via a Writ Petition. The High Court, by a common order dated 05.01.2024, allowed the writ petition, set aside the Minister’s order, and upheld the Scrutiny Committee’s findings on non-viability and non-fulfillment of financial parameters under Government Resolutions. The present appeals before the Supreme Court were filed against this High Court order.
17. Procedural History:
- Lower Court Decisions:
- Scrutiny Committee (13.04.2023): Rejected the appellant-society’s application for registration due to lack of financial viability and non-compliance with criteria.
- State of Maharashtra (Minister, Co-operatives) (28.06.2023): Allowed the appeal filed by the appellant-society, set aside the Scrutiny Committee’s order, and directed registration of the society.
- High Court of Judicature at Bombay (05.01.2024): Allowed the Writ Petition (No. 8654/2023 and connected matters) filed by Respondent No. 6, set aside the State’s order dated 28.06.2023, effectively restoring the Scrutiny Committee’s decision.
- Appeals:
- Appeal from Scrutiny Committee’s decision to the State of Maharashtra: Allowed.
- Writ Petition challenging the State’s order before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay: Allowed.
- Civil Appeals (arising from SLPs) before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s order: Dismissed.
18. Issues Framed:
While not explicitly framed as questions by the Court, the key issues considered were:
- Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the State Government’s order that permitted the registration of the appellant-societies, despite the Scrutiny Committee’s adverse findings on their economic viability.
- Whether the State Government (Minister, Co-operatives) erred in law by ignoring the mandatory pre-requisites for registration of co-operative societies, particularly concerning economic viability and minimum share capital as stipulated by Sections 4 and 6 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and relevant Government Resolutions.
- What is the legal status and binding nature of the findings of the Scrutiny Committee established to assess the financial viability of proposed co-operative societies?
- Can the State Government exercise discretion to relax pre-requisite conditions for registration in an appeal, contrary to its own established policies and Government Resolutions, without issuing a formal subsequent Government Resolution for such relaxation?
- Whether the locus standi of Respondent No. 6 (the original writ petitioner) to challenge the State’s order was a bar to the High Court’s or Supreme Court’s intervention.
19. Cases Cited:
- Cited by Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff: Not mentioned.
- Cited by Respondent/Defendant: Not mentioned.
20. Acts/Rules/Orders Referred:
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (the 1960 Act):
- Section 4 (Societies which may be registered): Quoted text: “A society, which has as its objects the promotion of the economic interests or general welfare of its members or of the public, in accordance with co-operative principles or a society established with the object of facilitating the operations of any such society, may be registered under this Act: Provided that, no society shall be registered if it is likely to be economically unsound, or the registration of which may have an adverse effect on development’ of the co-operative movement, or the registration of which may be contrary to the policy directives which the State Government may, from time to time, issue.” (Para 13, Page 20)
- Context: This section governs the eligibility for registration and includes a proviso against registering economically unsound societies or those contrary to State policy directives. The Court relied on this to emphasize economic viability as a pre-requisite.
- Section 6 (Conditions of registration): Quoted text (relevant part of sub-section 1): “(1)No society, other than a federal society, shall be registered under this Act,. Unless it consists of at least ten persons or such higher number of persons as the Registrar may, having regard to the objects and economic viability of a society and development of the Co-operative movement, determine from time to time for a class of societies (each of such persons being a member of a different family), who are qualified to be members under this Act, and who reside in the area of operation of the society:” (Para 13, Page 20-21)
- Context: This section also links registration conditions to economic viability. The Court read this with Section 4.
- Section 152: Mentioned as the provision under which the appeal was preferred by the appellant-society to the State. (Para 4, Page 10)
- Context: Establishes the appellate remedy within the co-operative framework.
- Section 4 (Societies which may be registered): Quoted text: “A society, which has as its objects the promotion of the economic interests or general welfare of its members or of the public, in accordance with co-operative principles or a society established with the object of facilitating the operations of any such society, may be registered under this Act: Provided that, no society shall be registered if it is likely to be economically unsound, or the registration of which may have an adverse effect on development’ of the co-operative movement, or the registration of which may be contrary to the policy directives which the State Government may, from time to time, issue.” (Para 13, Page 20)
- Government Resolution dated 23.09.2013:
- Condition No.4: Quoted text: “The number of members (accounting members) of a newly registered primary agricultural credit cooperative should be at least 75.” (Para 15, Page 21)
- Condition No. 5: Quoted text: “For the purpose of scrutiny of the proposal of primary agricultural credit cooperative society, committee will be formed as under mentioned for the purpose of inspection of financial ability.” (Para 15, Page 21)
- Context: This GR laid down revised criteria for PACCS registration, including minimum membership and the formation of a Scrutiny Committee to assess financial ability. The Court noted this established the Committee’s role. (Referred in Paras 12, 15, 18, Page 19, 21, 22).
- Government Resolution dated 14.02.2017 (and Corrigendum):
- Criteria 1): Quoted text: “There should preferably be only one primary agricultural credit cooperative in a revenue village. However, in villages where there is scope for registration of more than one society, taking into account other criteria of economic viability, more than one society can be registered.” (Para 16, Page 22)
- Criteria 1A): Quoted text: “A Scheduled Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society before its registration; it must have a minimum of Rs.5 lakh share capital and it is essential to do so.” (Para 16, Page 22)
- Context: This GR further clarified pre-requisites of economic viability, specifically mandating a minimum Rs. 5 lakh share capital before registration. The Court highlighted this as a crucial requirement the appellant failed to meet. (Referred in Paras 12, 16, 19, 25, 28, 29, Page 19, 22, 23, 25, 26).
21. Acts/Rules/Orders Governing the Case:
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960
- Government Resolution dated 23.09.2013
- Government Resolution dated 14.02.2017 (and its Corrigendum)
22. Literature Citation:
- Cited by Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff: []
- Cited by Respondent/Defendant: []
23. Appearances:
- Advocates:
- For Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff: Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants (Names not specified in OCR).
- For Respondent/Defendant/Accused/State: Learned Senior Counsels and counsels for the respondents (Names not specified in OCR).
- Witnesses: not mentioned.
- Other Persons: not mentioned.
24. Legal Jargons and Maxims:
- Locus standi: The right or capacity of a party to bring an action or to appear in a court. (Used in Paras 9 (High Court), 10.5, 10.7, 33; Pages 13, 16, 28)
- Ex-facie: On the face of it; something that is apparent or obvious without need for further investigation. (Used in Para 11.4; Page 18)
- Mala fides: In bad faith; with dishonest intent. (Used in Para 11.8; Page 19)
- Per contra: On the other hand; by way of contrast. (Used in Para 11; Page 17)
- PACCS: Abbreviation for Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society. (Used in Para 3, Page 6 and throughout)
- SLP: Abbreviation for Special Leave Petition, a formal request to the Supreme Court to hear an appeal. (Used on Page 1 and throughout)
25. Exhibits:
- “Exhibit Number”: Annexure P-1
“Description”: Government Resolution dated 23.09.2013
“Page Number”: Referenced as produced before the Supreme Court (Para 15, Page 21)
(No other exhibits are detailed with numbers and descriptions in the provided judgment text.)
26. Prayer:
While not quoted verbatim, the implied prayer of the Appellants before the Supreme Court was to:
Set aside the common order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 05.01.2024 in Writ Petition No. 8654/2023 and connected matters, and thereby restore the order of the State of Maharashtra (Minister, Co-operatives) dated 28.06.2023 which had allowed the registration of the appellant-societies. (Inferred from Para 2, Page 5: “The challenge in the present appeals is to the common order dated 05.01.2024…”)
27. Evidence & Findings:
- Evidence Type: Order of Scrutiny Committee
- Description: Order dated 13.04.2023 rejecting appellant-society’s registration application.
- Findings: The appellant-society was not financially viable; did not meet requirements under Government Resolutions (e.g., lack of bank guarantee, documents for bank loan, financial criteria of GR 23.09.2013). The Committee noted: “the petitioner society fails to comply with the criteria of economic viability and state it would not be advisable to establish society of the same type and with the same purpose in the area of operation of an unprofitable working society”.
- Page/Paragraph: Paras 3 (Page 6-9), 4 (Page 10), 23 (Page 24).
- Evidence Type: Order of State Government (Minister, Co-operatives)
- Description: Order dated 28.06.2023 allowing appeal and directing registration.
- Findings: Based on grounds like society for independent revenue village, no objection from existing society, potential for 152 other businesses, undertaking to raise share capital later.
- Page/Paragraph: Para 5 (Page 10-12).
- Evidence Type: Order of High Court of Judicature at Bombay
- Description: Common order dated 05.01.2024 in W.P. No. 8654/2023 & connected matters.
- Findings: State’s order was contrary to proviso of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Scrutiny Committee’s findings on non-viability and non-fulfillment of financial parameters (Govt. Resolutions of 23.09.2013 and 14.02.2017) were upheld.
- Page/Paragraph: Para 7 (Page 13-15).
- Evidence Type: Government Resolution
- Description: Dated 23.09.2013 (Annexure P-1).
- Findings: Established revised criteria for PACCS registration including minimum 75 members (Condition No. 4) and formation of Scrutiny Committee for inspection of financial ability (Condition No. 5). The Supreme Court found this mandated the Committee’s role.
- Page/Paragraph: Paras 15, 18 (Page 21-22).
- Evidence Type: Government Resolution (and Corrigendum)
- Description: Dated 14.02.2017.
- Findings: Mandated a minimum of Rs. 5 lakh share capital before registration for a PACCS (Criteria 1A). The Supreme Court found this to be a crucial pre-requisite for economic viability which was not met.
- Page/Paragraph: Paras 16, 19 (Page 22-23), Para 25 (Page 25), Para 28 (Page 25), Para 29 (Page 26).
28. Petitioner/Appellant/Plaintiff/Accused Arguments:
(Summarized from Paras 10.1 to 10.10, Pages 15-17)
- The appellant is the first and only Co-operative society in the said Revenue Village, a fact acknowledged by the Assistant Registrar (Para 10.1).
- It is practically not possible for any society to have a share capital of Rs. 5 lakhs at the time of applying for registration. An undertaking was submitted to raise this capital within one to three years (Para 10.2).
- The appellant-society made a genuine effort to fulfil all required documents for registration (Para 10.3).
- The State’s order correctly noted that multiple reasons can destabilize a society’s financial status, and registration should not be denied based on a single parameter like loan distribution to crops (Para 10.4).
- Respondent No. 6 (original writ petitioner) lacks locus standi to challenge the State’s order (Para 10.5).
- The society to which Respondent No. 6 belongs had already issued a ‘No-Objection-Certificate’ to the appellant-society, and an individual member cannot take a contrary stand unless the society passes a resolution to that effect (Para 10.6).
- The High Court, while accepting that the petitioners therein (including Respondent No. 6) lacked locus standi, still allowed their Writ Petition (Para 10.7).
- The population data for revenue villages submitted by Respondent No. 6 (based on the 2011 census) is outdated and does not reflect population growth over the past 13-14 years (Para 10.8).
- A co-operative society can manage 152 kinds of businesses apart from giving loans; it is unfair to ignore these other important aspects crucial for a society’s successful operation (Para 10.9).
- The appellant-society has 150 members, significantly exceeding the minimum requirement of 75 members for registration (Para 10.10).
29. Respondent/Defendant/Opponent/State Arguments:
(Summarized from Paras 11.1 to 11.8, Pages 17-19; representing arguments of Respondent No. 6 primarily)
- The eligibility for registration cannot be viewed in isolation from its impact on an existing society. The appellant failed to satisfy the threshold criteria and conditions to establish its own viability (Para 11.1).
- The appellant cannot, for the first time before the Supreme Court, seek to bypass the expert Scrutiny Committee by contending it lacked authority or jurisdiction to scrutinize the registration proposal (Para 11.2).
- The Scrutiny Committee’s order demonstrates an in-depth examination of the appellants’ proposals and provides detailed findings that militate against their eligibility for registration (Para 11.3).
- The order passed by the State is ex-facie perverse and unsustainable as it allowed registration without fulfillment of the most basic and mandatory pre-requisites (Para 11.4).
- Respondent No. 6, as a member of an existing society, is vitally affected because the registration of the appellant-society could destabilize the existing society and potentially lead to its closure (Para 11.5).
- The performance of existing primary credit cooperative societies in credit/loan disbursement shows they are barely able to achieve minimum targets fixed by Government Resolutions. Establishing new societies in adjacent villages would have a disastrous effect on them (Para 11.6).
- The No-Objection Certificate (NOC) relied upon by the appellant, allegedly from the society of Respondent No. 6, is unauthorised, and there is no record of its issuance in the society’s proceedings (Para 11.7).
- The appellant approached the Court with unclean hands, having artificially inflated its membership by including deceased persons to meet viability criteria, thereby demonstrating mala fides (Para 11.8).
30. Ratio Decidendi:
- The economic viability of a society is a fundamental pre-requisite for its registration under Sections 4 and 6(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. (Para 17, Page 22)
- Government Resolutions (dt. 23.09.2013 and 14.02.2017) lay down specific, mandatory criteria for ensuring economic viability, including the establishment of a Scrutiny Committee for financial inspection and a minimum share capital (Rs. 5 lakhs). (Paras 18, 19, Page 22-23)
- The Scrutiny Committee is an expert body whose findings on financial capability and eligibility, made after examining proposals, are significant and form part of the policy directives under Section 4 of the Act. (Paras 21, 22, 31, Page 23, 26-27)
- The State Government, when acting as an appellate authority, cannot ignore or contravene the basic criteria and pre-requisites for registration laid down by its own binding Government Resolutions and policies. (Para 25, Page 24-25)
- Decisions by the State based on hypothetical claims (e.g., ability to manage 152 businesses) without supporting material, while ignoring concrete findings on non-compliance with financial pre-requisites (like lack of bank undertaking for loan support, insufficient share capital), are flawed. (Paras 27, 28, 29, Page 25-26)
- Allowing registration of an economically non-viable society frustrates the very object of the Co-operative Societies Act and can adversely affect its members. (Para 30, Page 26)
- The State Government’s discretion to relax conditions cannot be used to bypass or frustrate the core objectives of the Act or established eligibility criteria. Any substantial relaxation of pre-requisites should be effected through a subsequent, formal Government Resolution, not on an ad-hoc basis in an appeal. (Para 32, Page 27)
- The issue of a party’s locus standi does not prevent a court from intervening where there is patent illegality in an administrative order that requires correction in law. (Para 33, Page 28)
31. Final Decision:
The appeals stand dismissed, and the impugned common order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay is upheld. All pending application(s), if any, are disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs. (Paras 35, 36, 37, Page 28)
32. Timeline:
- 2011: Census, data from which was referenced by Respondent No. 6. (Mentioned Para 10.8, Page 17)
- September 23, 2013: Government Resolution setting out revised criteria for PACCS registration issued. (Para 12, Page 19; Para 15, Page 21)
- January 13, 2023: Appellant-society filed an application for registration as a PACCS. (Para 3, Page 5)
- April 11, 2023: Date of letter from Assistant Registrar, Tal. Shahuwadi, mentioned in Scrutiny Committee’s reasons, opining the proposed society would not be financially viable. (Point 12 of Scrutiny Committee reasons, Para 3, Page 8)
- April 13, 2023: Scrutiny Committee rejected the appellant-society’s registration application. (Para 3, Page 6; Para 4, Page 10)
- June 28, 2023: The State (Minister, Co-operatives) allowed the appellant’s appeal and directed registration. (Para 5, Page 10)
- 2023: Writ Petition No. 8654/2023 (and connected matters) filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. (Para 2, Page 5)
- January 05, 2024: High Court of Judicature at Bombay passed the common order allowing the writ petitions and setting aside the State’s order. (Para 2, Page 5)
- February 14, 2017: Government Resolution (and Corrigendum) issued, specifying minimum share capital for PACCS. (Para 12, Page 19; Para 16, Page 22)
- 2024: Special Leave Petitions (Civil) (e.g., SLP (C) No. 4090 of 2024) filed in the Supreme Court. (Page 1)
- April 2, 2025: Date of the Supreme Court Judgment. (Page 28)