Bombay High Court
P.K.Anna Patil Janta Sahakari ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 13 April, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 W.P.No.3620/16
UNREPORTED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.3620 OF 2016.
Shri P.K.Anna Patil Janta
Sahakari Bank Limited,
Nandurbar (In Liquidation)
through its Liquidator
Branch Manager
Shri Kashinath Vanji Patil,
Age 55 years, Occ.Service,
R/o 26, Trimbaknagar,
W.B.Road, Deopur, Dhule,
District Dhule. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through the Secretary for
Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Collector, Nandurbar,
District Nandurbar.
3. The Tahsildar, Nandurbar,
Tq. and Dist.Nandurbar.
4. The State Bank of India,
Nandurbar Branch, Nandurbar,
Dist.Nandurbar, through
its Branch Manager. ... Respondents.
...
Mr.V.D.Hon, Senior advocate i/by Mr.A.V.Hon,
::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:11:13 :::
2 W.P.No.3620/16
advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.P.Sonpawale, A.G.P. for the State.
Mr.M.S.Deshpande, advocate holding for
Mr.C.R.Deshpande, advocate for Respondent No.4.
...
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
K.K.SONAWANE,JJ.
Date : 13.04.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.)
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the parties, the petition is taken
up for final hearing.
3. The order passed by the Tahsildar,
thereby directing to freeze the account of the
petitioner for an amount of Rs.67,42,680/-
(Rupees sixty seven lacs forty two thousand six
hundred eighty) is assailed.
4. Mr.Hon, learned Senior counsel submits
that Liquidator is appointed on the petitioner-
society in the year 2009. Because of the order
passed by the Tahsildar, it has become difficult
for the Liquidator to function. As per Section
107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act,
no orders can be passed with regard to
proceedings against the society in liquidation,
without the leave of the Registrar. The learned
Senior counsel submits that without taking leave,
the impugned order has been passed. The
distribution and payment of dues has to be done
by the Liquidator
ig as per Section 105 of the
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.
5. Mr.Sonpawale, learned A.G.P. submits
that as per Section 25(3) of the Consumer
Protection Act, the order has been passed. The
District Consumer Forum had allowed the claims of
the depositors, the petitioner did not make the
payment of the same, as such the Tahsildar was
required to pass the impugned order.
6. We have also heard learned counsel for
Respondent No.4.
7. We have considered the submissions. The
Respondent No.4 has put on hold the account of
the petitioner to the extent of Rs.67,42,680/-
(Rupees sixty seven lacs forty two thousand six
hundred eighty) pursuant to the impugned order of
the Tahsildar. Reading provisions of Sections
105 to 107, it is manifest that payment of the
dues of the society have to be made by the
Liquidator after considering the priority of the
claims, secured claims etc. Even as per Section
107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act,
whenever Liquidator is appointed, no proceedings
can proceed without the leave of the Registrar.
The Tahsildar, without considering the said
aspect has passed the impugned order.
8. In light of the above, the impugned
order is quashed and set aside. Rule is made
absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). No
costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(K.K.SONAWANE,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
asp/office/wp3620.16
