Nirmal Ujwal Sah. Pat Sanstha ... vs State Of Mah. Thru. Secty. & 6 Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 1721 Bom

                                                                                  1                                                                wp3330.08

                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                 NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR


                                                       WRIT PETITION NO.3330/2008

Nirmal Ujwal Sahakari Pat Sanstha,
Registration No.401, having its office 
at 193, Nandanvan, Main Road, Nagpur -9, 
through its General Manager, Mrs. Nanda
Dinesh Bante.                                                                                                                                                   ..Petitioner.

            ..Vs..

1.          The State of Maharashtra,
            through its Secretary, Cooperation and 
            Textiles Department, Mantralaya, 
            Mumbai - 400 032.

2.          The Commissioner for Cooperation
            and Textiles and Registrar, Cooperative 
            Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune. 

3.          The Divisional Joint Registrar,
            Cooperative Societies, Nashik. 

4.          The District Deputy Registrar,
            Cooperative Societies Jalgaon. 

5.          Deputy Registrar,
            Cooperative Societies, Jalgaon, 
            Taluka and Distt. Jalgoan. 

6.          Assistant Registrar,
            Cooperative Societies, Yaval, 
            Tahsil Yaval, Distt. Jalgaon. 

7.          Central Registrar, Co-operative
            Societies, under the Multi State 
            Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, 
            New Delhi.                                                                                                                             ..Respondents.
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
           Shri M.V. Samarth, Advocate for the petitioner. 
           Ms. Shamsi Z. Haider, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 




                    ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2017                                                                              ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:10:28 :::
                                           2                                                                wp3330.08



                                   CORAM :  Z.A.HAQ, J.

                                   DATE  :     13.4.2017.



ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Shri M.V. Samarth, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Shamsi Z. Haider, A.G.P. for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The petitioner - society takes exception to the order passed by the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies under Section 18(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1960") directing amalgamation of three societies with the petitioner - society. The impugned order is challenged substantially on the ground that the order of amalgamation is passed without complying with the requirements of Section 17 of the Act of 1960. In the impugned order it is recorded that in exercise of powers conferred by Section 157 of the Act of 1960, the State Government had exempted the societies from applicability of Sections 17 and 18 of the Act of 1960 and Rules 16 and 17 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1961").

The general order dated 18th March, 2008 issued by the State Government under Section 157 of the Act of 1960 cannot be used against the petitioner - society. The proviso to Section 157 of the Act of 1960 lays down that an order to the prejudice of any society cannot be passed under this section without granting an opportunity to such society to represent its case. It is the grievance of the petitioner - society that the applicability of Sections 17 and 18 of the Act of 1960 and Rules 16 and 17 of the Rules of 1961 could not have been exempted without granting hearing to the petitioner - society and affording an opportunity to represent its case. I find substance in the

3 wp3330.08

submissions made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner - society.

By the order passed on 30th July, 2008 while issuing notice to the respondents this Court granted an interim order and stayed the effect and operation of the impugned orders and the interim order was continued when Rule was issued on 8th December, 2008. The interim order continues till today. In these facts, the urgency which was shown by the respondents for undertaking the process of amalgamation by exempting the applicability of Sections 17 and 18 of the Act of 1960 and Rules of 16 and 17 of the Rules of 1961 has not fructified and the three societies are not amalgamated with the petitioner - society till date.

In the above facts, in my view, the following order would sub-serve the ends of justice:

(i)                 The impugned orders are set aside.
(ii)                The   matter   is   remitted   to   the   Assistant   Registrar   Co-operative

Societies, Yaval, Distt. Jalgaon for considering the matter afresh according to law.

(iii) Needless to say that the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies shall issue notice and grant hearing to the petitioner - society if he intends to proceed further in the matter.

Rule made absolute in the above terms.

In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

Tambaskar.