Shri Agrasen Mandal, Nagpur ... vs Divisional Joint Registrar Of ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 5463 Bom

                                       1                                                               wp1298.15


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                                              
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 1298 OF 2015




                                                                
    1. Shri Agrasen Mandal, Nagpur
         Agrasen Bhavan, Shri Agrasen
         Chowk, Gandhibagh, Nagpur
         through its Secretary.




                                                               
    2. Shri Agrasen Mandal, Nagpur
         Agrasen Bhavan, Shri Agrasen
         Chowk, Gandhibagh, Nagpur
         through its President.




                                            
    3. Shri Agrasen Mandal, Nagpur
                             
         Agrasen Bhavan, Shri Agrasen
         Chowk, Gandhibagh, Nagpur
         through its Vice President.                               ... PETITIONERS
                            
                                            VERSUS

    1. Divisional Joint Registrar of 
         Cooperative Societies, Dhanwate
      

         Chambers (Annex) Sitabuldi,
         Nagpur - 440 012.
   



    2. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative
        Societies, City-1, Plot No. 185, 
         Ayurvedic College Layout, Bhande 
         Plot Chowk, Umrer Road, Nagpur.





    3. Kalamna Market Urban Credit 
         Cooperative Society Limited, Nagpur,
         through Administrator - O/o Deputy
         Registrar, Cooperative Society, City-1,
         Plot No.185, Auyrvedic College Layout,





         Bhande Plot Chowk, Umrer Road, 
         Nagpur.                                                 ... RESPONDENTS

                                        ....
    Smt. R.D. Raskar, Advocate for the petitioners.
    Shri H.R. Dhumale, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
                                        ....




    ::: Uploaded on - 23/09/2016                                ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2016 00:45:40 :::
                                           2                                                               wp1298.15




                                                                                                 
                                            CORAM : PRASANNA.B.VARALE, J.

DATED : 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

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

consent of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective

parties. Shri H.R. Dhumale, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives

notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the order

dated 04.03.2015 passed by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar of

Cooperative Societies, Nagpur thereby rejecting an application seeking

grant of stay during the pendency of the revision .

3. It would not be necessary to go into the details of the

submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners or the

points of merit raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. By order

dated 04.12.2004, the Deputy Registrar was of the opinion that the

petitioner/Society received an amount of Rs.5,57,536/- as a loan amount

for Kalamna Market Urban Credit Cooperative Society and the petitioner/

Society failed to repay the loan and as such the proceedings were initiated

for recovery of the amount and by exercising the powers under the

Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, the Deputy Registrar passed the

3 wp1298.15

order under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act

directing the petitioner/Society to repay the amount. The petitioner/

Society being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Registrar

Cooperative Societies, preferred revision before the Joint Registrar

Cooperative Societies. The petitioner/Society submitted an application for

grant of stay during the pendency of the revision. The authority concerned

namely the Joint Registrar, by referring to certain facts relating to the

backdrop of the revision though observed that in the earlier round of the

proceedings the recovery certificate was issued without following the due

process of law or without following the provisions of the Maharashtra

Cooperative Societies Act, Recovery Certificate was issued and as such the

matter was remanded back for passing order afresh and further observed

that the contention of the petitioner/Society that the disputed amount of

Rs.5,57,536/- is paid by the petitioner/Society vide a cheque and the

contention of the petitioner/Society gets support from the perusal of the

bank accounts. The authority further observed that the points raised by

the revisioner/petitioner i.e. petitioner herein needs consideration and it

would be necessary to decide these points by giving an opportunity of

hearing to the parties. Hence the authority observed thus and rejected the

application seeking grant of stay.

4. Smt. Raskar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners is justified

in submitting that on one hand the authority concerned finds some favour

4 wp1298.15

with the submission of the petitioner not only this but the authority

concerned was of the opinion that this issue raised by the petitioner would

require consideration and an opportunity of hearing is required to be

granted to the parties and on the other hand, the authority concerned

without recording any reason for denial to the prayer of stay, rejected the

applications. The learned Counsel is also justified in submitting that the

self contradictory stand reflected in the order passed by the concerned

authority causes a prejudice to the petitioner/Society.

5. As I find considerable merit in the submission of the learned

Counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the order impugned in

the petition is clearly unsustainable. Shri Dhumale, the learned AGP for

the respondents makes an attempt to submit that before this Court the

petitioner/Society failed to comply with the provisions of the Act namely

depositing 50 per cent of the recoverable amount. Shri Dhumale, the

learned AGP, on instructions, submits that the petitioner/Society

deposited an amount to the tune of Rs.2,80,000/-. It is the submission of

the learned AGP that the recoverable amount as per the Recovery

Certificate would be Rs.12,18,570/- and the petitioner/Society will have to

deposit 50 per cent of the said amount. Smt. Raskar, the learned Counsel

for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that though the petitioners

dispute on the submission of the learned AGP that the recoverable amount

be Rs.12,18,570/-, to show their bona fides, the petitioners would deposit

5 wp1298.15

50 per cent of the amount namely Rs.12,18,570/- before the revisional

authority. It is not in dispute that this Court in various judgments

observed that the orders passed by the quasi judicial authorities must

reflect the reasons even it would not be necessary for the quasi judicial

authorities to pass detailed order but the order passed by the quasi judicial

authorities must reflect that the authority has applied its mind and on

some reasons, the order is passed. As stated above, the order impugned in

the petition is silent on this aspect.

6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order impugned in

the petition is quashed and set aside. The Joint Registrar Cooperative

Societies is directed to pass the order afresh on the application seeking

grant of stay by giving equal opportunity to the respective parties. The

exercise of passing the order afresh be undertaken and concluded within

six weeks from the date of the order of this Court. The petitioners to

deposit an additional amount i.e. 50 per cent of an amount of

Rs.12,18,570/- before the Joint Registrar within three weeks from today.

The petitioners have already deposited an amount of Rs.2,80,000/-.

The petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. Rule is accordingly

made absolute.

JUDGE

*rrg.

                                      6                                                               wp1298.15




                                                                                            
                                   C E R T I F I C A T E




                                                              

"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment."

Uploaded by : R.R. Ghatole. Uploaded on : 23.09.2016.