Chandrapur District Gittikhadan ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Sec. ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3738 Bom

                                       1                                                               wp6948.15


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                              
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 6948 OF 2015




                                                                
    Chandrapur District Gittikhadan Mazur
    Sahakari Societies Federation Limited,
    through its Chairman, shri Ramesh Baliramji 
    Kalsarpe, having its office at behind 




                                                               
    Kannamwar Bhavan, Block No.10, Old
    Warora Naka, Behind Patrakar Bhavan,
    Chandrapur, District Chandrapur.               ... PETITIONER

                                            VERSUS




                                            
    1. The State of Maharashtra, through the
                             
         Secretary, Cooperative Department,
         Mantralaya, Mumbai.
                            
    2. The Secretary, Department of Co-
         operation, Marketing and Handlooms,
         Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.

    3. The Commissioner for Cooperation and
      

         Registrar, Cooperative Societies, 
         Maharashtra State, Central Building,
   



         Pune - 01.

    4. The District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative
         Societies, Administrative Building, 2nd 
         Floor, Chandrapur.





    5. The Chandrapur District Contract Labour
         Cooperative Societies Federation Limited,
         Chandrapur, through its Secretary/ Manager,
         having its office at Kalam Plaza Apartment,
         Behind Bhavanjibai School, Near Dr.





         Bhukte's Clinic, Vivek Nagar, Chandrapur,
         District Chandrapur.                        ... RESPONDENTS

                                           ....
    Shri A.H. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner.
    Shri V.P. Maldhure, Addl. Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
    Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for respondent No.5.
                                           ....




    ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016                                ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:04:30 :::
                                            2                                                               wp6948.15




                                                                                                  
                                            CORAM : PRASANNA B.VARALE, J.




                                                                    
    DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 14TH MARCH, 2016.

    DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 12TH JULY, 2016.




                                                                   
    JUDGMENT : 

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the

consent of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective

parties. Shri V.P. Maldhure, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives

notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, the

learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent No.5.

2. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the order passed

by the State through the Secretary dated 04th December, 2015, thereby

quashing and setting aside the directions issued by the District Deputy

Registrar/respondent No.4 dated 07th February, 2013 for forwarding the list

of the works available for allotment to the societies.

3. It is submitted by Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner is the federation of the societies of labours

engaged in metal stones. The department of Cooperation vide

communication dated 31.03.2005, granted stay for registration of the

labour societies. It was intimated that the proposal received for

3 wp6948.15

registration of the new labours societies be submitted before the

government for necessary sanction/approval. Vide order dated 07th

November, 2008 subject to certain conditions namely considering the

number of the labour societies and the work available, the stay was

vacated. Certain guidelines were issued including the verification of the

list of members of labour societies, opening of the bank accounts of the

members of the labour societies in the nearest District Central Cooperative

Bank, the amounts to be deposited in the respective bank accounts of the

members of the society and allotment of the works through the Work

Allotment Committee. It was stated in those guidelines that if it is found

that certain works are allotted without the approval of the works

committee to society, the society be included in the black list. The

underlying object of the guidelines is also reflected namely registration of

the real/genuine societies after verification. For the purposes of

considering the controversy involved in the petition, it would be necessary

to refer to clause 14 of the guidelines. Clause 14 reads that, for the labour

societies engaged in loading and unloading of the material. The societies

of the skilled and technical labours namely engaged in electrical work,

plumbing work and engaged in metal stones, the conditions of the circular

would not apply. It is further stated that such societies must have a

specific mention of their peculiar works and while allotting the work, the

work allotment committee should allot the peculiar works to those

peculiar societies of the labour (emphasis supplied). The said circular was

4 wp6948.15

subsequently clarified by issuing corrigendum dated 31st May, 2010.

Perusal of the said circular shows that clause 14 was modified to the effect

that as the societies of the labours engaged in loading and unloading work

and the Cooperative Societies of the labours are covered under same

classification and the byelaws are identical. The power to register the

societies of the labours engaged in loading and unloading was granted to

the Divisional Committee. It was further stated that while registering such

societies, the procedure under Government Circular dated 21.12.2004 be

followed.

4. Being aggrieved by the modification in the byelaws and the

corrigendum issued, the petitioner was before this Court by preferring Writ

Petition No. 3250 of 2012. It was the grievance of the petitioner that the

petitioner societies work prohibited from undertaking the other works

which were to be distributed amongst the labour cooperative societies on

the ground that the petitioner is the federation of the labours engaged in

specialized type of work. The petition was opposed by the respondents in

Writ Petition and also by the State. This Court observed thus, "We find

that this issue can more conveniently be looked into by the

Commissioner, Cooperative Societies, who has issued communication

dated 06th December, 2008. For said purpose, we direct petitioner to

appear before the Commissioner for Cooperation, Cooperative societies,

Maharashtra State, Pune on 22nd October, 2012 and to abide by its further

5 wp6948.15

instructions in the matter. Said authority shall, after undertaking

necessary scrutiny in the matter, find out whether restriction as imposed

under Circular dated 06th December, 2008 is proper or then petitioner

society is free and can be allotted even general labour work. Said decision

shall be taken within a further period of four weeks. Necessary policy

decision/circular in that pursuance of the decision, shall be issued to all

local bodies including respondent No.2 and 3 within a further period of

three weeks. With these observations and directions, we dispose of

petition. No costs".

5. In view of the order of this Court, the Additional Registrar,

Cooperative Societies issued communication dated 09.11.2012 and thereby

issued directions to the District Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative

Societies, Chandrapur that the societies of the petitioner-federation be

allotted the works considering the guidelines of work allotment

committee. On the basis of the said communication, the District Deputy

Registrar, Chandrapur issued a circular and directed that the list of the

available works be forwarded to the petitioner-federation. The material

placed on record shows that at the instance of one of the Members of

Legislative Assembly, the Hon'ble Minister granted stay to the directions

issued by the District Deputy Registrar and further directed to convene a

meeting. The said order of the Hon'ble Minister was challenged before

this Court by the petitioner by preferring Writ Petition No. 5166 of 2014.

6 wp6948.15

This Court initially on 24th September, 2014, by observing that challenge to

the order was on the ground of failure to observe the principle of natural

justice, granted interim relief. The petition was finally decided on 29th

June, 2015. the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister was set aside. The

proceedings were remanded back to the State Government for considering

the same afresh after hearing the petitioner in the proceedings. The copy

of the order dated 29th June, 2015 is placed on record at Annexure-F. The

revision was heard by the revisional authority. It was observed by the

revisional authority that the communication dated 09.11.2012 and the

circular issued by the District Deputy Registrar dated 07.02.2013 were

contrary to the circular dated 06.12.2008. It was also observed by the

revisional authority that the allotment of work to the members societies of

the petitioner-federation would cause a prejudice to the revision/

petitioner. Thus, by order dated 04.12.204, the revision was allowed and

the communication dated 09.11.2012 and the circular dated 07.02.2013

were cancelled. The said order is under challenge in the instant petition.

6. Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently

submitted that the federation is the union of various societies of the labour

working in the metal stone works. It was further the submission of the

learned Counsel that these societies were named and styled as "Societies

of the Labours" engaged in metal stones works (Gittikhadan Majoor

Sahakari Sanstha). These societies were classified under the larger canvas

7 wp6948.15

of labour societies. Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, by

inviting my attention to the registration certificate granted to the

petitioner-federation, submitted that the object of the federation is to

protect the interest of the members of the societies. He also submitted

that the byelaws of the federation were amended. It was stated in the

amended byelaws that the classification of the federal society would be the

producer society and the sub classification would be the federal society of

the industrial labours. Shri Patil further submitted that clause 11 of the

amended byelaws refere to the object of the federal societies and that is to

supervise and verify the work being allotted to the members societies to

verify that the work is completed within stipulated period and to

coordinate between the department allotting the work and the society

undertaking the work. The learned Counsel also submitted that the

circular dated 06.12.2008 provided the guidelines for registration of the

labour cooperative societies. He also submitted that as clause 14 of the

said circular was prejudicial in the interest of justice, the same was

modified and a corrigendum dated 31st May, 2010 was issued.

7. Shri Patil also relies on the order dated 07th September, 2012 in

Writ Petition No. 3250 of 2012 to submit that a grievance was raised before

this Court about the demand of the allotment of work to the societies and

prohibiting the societies to undertake the work on the ground that the

societies are engaged in a peculiar type of work. The learned Counsel

8 wp6948.15

again submitted that the Commissioner of Cooperation and the Registrar

of the Cooperative Societies, by communication dated 09.11.2012, issued

directions to the District Deputy Registrar for allotting the work

considering the fact that there were nearly thousands of the members of

various societies and those societies were of the economical weaker

section of the societies and the object was to rising the living standard of

the members by providing/allotting the works to the members societies.

Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of

the communication of the Commissioner, Cooperative Societies, the

District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chandrapur issued the

circular with a direction to make available the list of the work for allotment

to the federation society. He further submitted that the respondent No.5

by seeking intervention of the local MLA, approached the Minister and the

Hon'ble Minister granted stay to the circular. Thereafter, the respondent

No.5 presented revision before the Hon'ble Minister, Cooperative Societies

and though the petitioner-society was a necessary party, the petitioner-

society was not made party to the revision.

8. Shri Patil, the learned Counsel submitted that behind back of

the petitioner, the revision was allowed by the Hon'ble Minister and as

such the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing writ

petition in challenge to the order of the Hon'ble Minister and in view of the

order passed by this Court, the matter was remitted back to the revisional

9 wp6948.15

authority. He further submitted that the revisional authority mechanically

passed the order without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner/

society. It was submitted that the grievance was raised before the

revisional authority that the revision was at a belated stage and the

revision/applicant failed to submit any application for condonation of

delay with justifiable reasons and the revisional authority without

considering this objection, allowed the revision. Shri Patil, the learned

Counsel further submitted that merely because the members societies of

the petitioner-federation carry the name of the society as labour societies

of Gittikhadan Majoor Sahakari Sanstha, the society cannot be prevented

from undertaking the works be allotted to the other labour societies. The

learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the members of the

petitioner societies are at par with the other labour societies. He further

submitted that the petitioner federation has also placed on record that the

various labour societies were allotted works and even some societies were

allotted the work more than the prescribed limits. He also submitted that

as all the members of the societies of the petitioner federation are already

registered societies, there may not have been a prohibition for allotment of

the work under clause 14 of the government circular dated 06.12.2008.

Thus, on these submissions, Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the

petitioner prays for setting aside the order impugned in the present

petition.

10 wp6948.15

9. Per contra, Shri Bhandarkar, the learned Counsel for

respondent No.5 and Shri Maldhure, the learned AGP for respondent

Nos.1 to 4 support the order impugned in the present petition.

10. Shri Bhandarkar, the learned Counsel for respondent No.5

submitted that the challenge to the order passed by the revisional

authority impugned in the present petition is unsustainable. He further

submitted that the circular dated 06.12.2008 refers to various guidelines

and clause 14 of the said circular makes it very clear that for registration of

the societies namely the labours societies engaged in loading and

unloading for the societies of the skilled and technical labours, which are

already registered, the conditions imposed in the circular would not be

applicable. He submitted that clause 14 also makes it very clear that the

name of such societies must refer to their peculiar type of work in which

they are engaged. Shri Bhandarkar, the learned Counsel further submitted

that clause 14 further makes it clear that the work allotment committee

shall allot the peculiar work to the societies engaged in peculiar works. He

also submitted that clause 14 shall give only liberal scope for registration of

the societies and deal with the requirement of forwarding the proposal to

the Divisional Committee. The learned Counsel submitted that clause 14

empowers the registration authority to register the societies and the

requirement of proposal routed through the Divisional Committee was

relaxed. Shri Bhandarkar, the learned Counsel for respondent No.5 then

11 wp6948.15

submitted that even the corrigendum dated 31st May, 2010 was for treating

the societies of Gittikhadan Majoors at par with the other labour societies

for registration. He further submitted that the communication dated

09.11.2012 and circular dated 07.02.2013 were causing a serious prejudice

to respondent No.5-federal society. The learned Counsel submitted that,

by raising the grievance, the respondent submitted a revision before the

Hon'ble Minister and the Hon'ble Minister passed the order dated

17.07.2014. Shri Bhandarkar further submitted that as the petitioner was

not party to the said revision, this Court, by its order, directed the

revisional authority to decide the revision afresh by hearing the petitioner

federal society. The learned Counsel submitted that the revisional

authority considering the grievance raised by the petitioner, allowed the

revision and no error is committed by the revisional authority.

11. On hearing both the learned Counsel for the parties and on

perusal of the material placed on record, I find considerable merit in the

submission of Shri Bhandarkar, the learned Counsel for respondent No.5.

Though it was an attempt made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner

to submit that the petitioner federation of the members societies engaged

in the metal stone work is at par with the other labour societies. Clause 14

of circular dated 06.12.2008 mandates the authorities for allotment of the

work to the members societies of the petitioner and the byelaws of the

federation and subsequent amended byelaws make it clear that the

12 wp6948.15

members of the petitioner-federation are entitled for allotment of the

work. I am unable to accept the submission of Shri Patil, the learned

Counsel for the petitioner. As it is rightly submitted by Shri Bhandarkar,

the learned Counsel for respondent No.5, clause 14 of the said circular

specifically states that the work allotment committee shall allot the

peculiar work to the societies engaged in that peculiar type of work.

Perusal of clause 14 shows that the condition of registration of the society

with prior approval from the Divisional Committee is relaxed. Clause 14

states that for registration of such societies namely the societies engaged in

loading and unloading and these societies of skilled and technical labours

for these societies, the conditions for the registration would not be

applicable. On perusal of the amended byelaws referred to by Shri Patil,

the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it reveals that the petitioner-

federation societies referred to the classification as the producer society

and sub classification is the industrial labour societies. The perusal of the

byelaws of the members societies that the object of this society is to see

that by receiving tenders of various works, the members are engaged in

some work and they are not deprived from the work. The object is also to

substantially rise the economic condition of the members. The other

object is to purchase the necessary material and establish the work places,

godowns and making available the means of transportation. The order

passed by the revisional authority impugned in the petition if perused, it

reveals that the grievance of the revision/applicant i.e. respondent No.5

13 wp6948.15

before this Court was that there are 91 members of the respondent

No.5/Society. Out of them, 25 members societies were deprived of any

work allotment till date of filing the revision and if the works are allotted to

the members societies of the petitioner federation as per the instructions

of 09.11.2012, the revision applicant i.e. respondent No.5 before this Court,

would be certainly adversely affected.

12. There is also merit in the submission of Shri Bhandarkar, the

learned Counsel for respondent No.5 that the members societies of

respondent No.5 are of such members who are engaged in building and

construction work. He submitted that the construction works are allotted

to the members societies of respondent No.5 and if such work is allotted to

the members petitioner federation, the same would result in the petitioner

federation entering in the domain of respondent No.5-society. There is

also considerable merit in the submission of Shri Bhandarkar that clause

14 is aimed at equal distribution of the work to the societies working in the

respective fields. He also submitted that the reference in clause 14 for a

clear indication in the name of the societies of its peculiar field is to

achieve the object that the typical nature of the work available should be

allotted to such a society engaged in that typical work. It is not in dispute

that the petitioner-federation society is of such members societies wherein

the members are engaged in a peculiar work. Though Shri Patil, the

learned Counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to submit that merely

14 wp6948.15

the name of the petitioner federal society may not prohibit the members

societies of respondent No.5 for entitlement of the work allotment, such

allotment of work would certainly result in depriving some of the member

societies of respondent No.5 in refusing the allotment of work engaged in

building and construction. The circular issued dated 06.12.2008 cannot be

read to lead either depriving some of the societies from allotment of work

or an unequal distribution of the work amongst the societies. The

communication dated 09.11.2012 and the circular issued by the District

Deputy Registrar, Chandrapur, dated 07.02.2013 result in either depriving

the labour societies from allotment of the construction work or an unequal

distribution of the work amongst the societies. Such effect is neither

permissible under law nor sustainable by any reasons. In view of these

facts, the challenge to the order impugned in the petition fails.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

JUDGE

*rrg.

Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for stay

15 wp6948.15

of the order of this Court for the period of two weeks on the ground that

this Court by order, dated 23rd December, 2015 directed the District Works

Committee, Chandrapur and District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative

Societies, Chandrapur to consider the claim of the petitioner, respondent

No.5 and other similarly situated Societies for allotment of work without

prejudice to their rights.

Shri Bhandarkar, the learned Counsel for respondent No.5

opposes the prayer for grant of stay submitting that the order dated 23rd

December, 2015 was not prohibiting the authorities from allotting the

work but it was only a workable arrangement so as to consider the claim of

the Societies during the pendency of the petition, without prejudice to

their rights.

Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner is the federation of the members Societies and there are

thousands of members of these Societies affiliated to the petitioner

federation who apprehend that they would be deprived from allotment of

the work.

At the request of Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the

petitioner, the judgment and order of this Court is stayed only for two

weeks from today. Needless to state that after expiry of the period of two

16 wp6948.15

weeks, the stay granted by this Court shall stand vacated without further

reference to this Court.

JUDGE.

*rrg.