Bombay High Court
Tukaimata Shetkari Dhanya ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 23 March, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
WP No. 2768/17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2768 OF 2017
1. Tukaimata Shetkari Dhanya Adhikosh
Seva Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Awai,
Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.
Through its Chairman,
Hari S/o Ramchandra Buchale,
Age: 37 years, Occu: Agril.,
R/o. Awai, Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.
2. Godagir Shetkari Dhanya Adhikosh
Seva Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Ganpur,
Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.
Through its Chairman,
Kundlik S/o Babarao Kalbande,
Age: 32 years Occu: Agril.,
R/o. Ganpur, Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.
3. Vinayak Shetkari Dhanya Adhikosh
Seva Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Pimpla Bhatya,
Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.
Through its Chairman,
Premala Gangadhar More,
Age: 37 years, Occu: Agril.,
R/o. Pimpla Bhatya, Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.
4. Tarangan Shetkari Dhanya Adhikosh
Seva Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Pangra(Purna),
Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.
Through its Chairman,
Santram S/o Nagorao Dhone,
Age: 30 years, Occu: Agril.,
R/o. Pangra(Purna), Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.
5. Baliraja Shetkari Dhanya Adhikosh
Seva Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Mamdapur,
Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.
Through its Chairman,
Hariram S/o Baburao Kalbande,
Age: 32 years, Occu: Agril.,
R/o. Mamdapur, Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.
::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:08:49 :::
WP No. 2768/17
2
6. Kondji Maharaj Shetkari Dhanya Adhikosh
Seva Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Suki,
Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.
Through its Chairman,
Balaji S/o Keshavrao Kalbande,
Age: 62 years, Occu: Agril.,
R/o. Suki, Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.
7. Tushar Shetkari Dhanya Adhikosh
Seva Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Nila,
Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.
Through its Chairman,
Ramesh S/o Shankarrao Suriwanshi,
Age: 30 years, Occu: Agril.,
R/o. Nila, Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.
8. Sant Gajanan Shetkari Dhanya Adhikosh
Seva Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Barbadi,
Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.
Through its Chairman,
Rameshrao S/o Zelaji Shinde,
Age: 25 years, Occu: Agril.,
R/o. Barbadi, Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani. ....Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Marketing Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2 The Director of Marketing,
Maharashtra State, Pune,
3rd Floor, New Administrative
Building, Pune-411 001.
3. The Divisional Joint Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad,
Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad.
4. The District Deputy Registrar,
Co- operative Societies, Parbhani.
Tq. and Dist. Parbhani.
::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2017 01:08:49 :::
WP No. 2768/17
3
5. The Assistant Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Purna,
Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani.
6. The Agricultural Produce Market
Committee, Purna, Tq. Purna,
Dist. Parbhani,
Through its Secretary.
7. Purna (New) Vividh Kari Seva
Sahakari Sansthan Ltd., Purna
Through its Authorized Person
Vishal Vijaykumar Kadam
Age: 36 Occu: Agri., R/o Purna
Dist. Parbhani.
8. Kanhegaon Vividh Kari Seva Sahakari Sanstha
Tal. Purna, District Parbhani,
Through its Authorized Person
Vasudeo Nandarao Navgire
Age:50 Occu: Agri.,
R/o Kanhegaon Tq. Purna,
Dist. Parbhani. Respondents.
Mr. S.B. Ghatol-Patil, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. A.V. Deshmukh, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
Mr. V.M. Maske, Advocate for respondent No. 6
Mr. S.K. Chavan, Advocate for respondent Nos. 7 and 8.
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATED : 23rd March, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMEN :
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent,
heard both the sides for final disposal.
WP No. 2768/17
2) The petition is filed to challenge the decision given
by respondent No. 4 - the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies, by which the claims of the petitioners for including
their names in voters list for election to Agricultural Produce
Marketing Committee (APMC), Purna (respondent No. 6) is
rejected. Respondent No. 4 has rejected the claims by observing
that the petitioners are not agricultural credit societies and
multipurpose cooperative societies as contemplated under
section 13 (1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1963. This Court has
carefully gone through the provisions of section 13 of the Act,
the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960
and also the Rule 36 framed under the aforesaid Act as
Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and
Regulation) Rules, 1967.
3) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that recently other Court at this Bench has decided this point in
Writ Petition No. 1669/2017 [Pimpla Lokhande Shetkari
Dhanya Adhikosh Seva Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. and Ors.
Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.] on 21.2.2017, this
Court has made it clear that in view of the aforesaid provisions,
the multipurpose cooperative societies as mentioned in Rule 10
WP No. 2768/17
of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules 1961 are also
included in the provision of section 13 of the Special Enactment
and Rules framed under the Special Enactment. This Court has
carefully gone through the reasoning given by the learned Single
Judge of this Court in that regard. There cannot be dispute over
the proposition made by the learned Single Judge that the
Societies like the petitioners/societies are included in aforesaid
provisions of Special Enactment and they are entitled to vote as
they are within the local jurisdiction of APMC, Purna.
4) One more point was raised by learned counsel Shri.
Chavan that the claims of the petitioners were rejected by the
authority on 24.1.2017 and so, the claims were not within the
period prescribed under Rule 36 (sub-rule 15) of aforesaid Rules.
This Court has carefully gone through that Rule also. In the
Rules, it is made clear that it is the duty of the Collector and
District Deputy Registrar to see that the members of all Village
Panchayat, which are covered by the APMC and the societies as
mentioned in the section and which are covered by the aforesaid
provisions are included in the voters list. Thus, it is primary duty
of the authority to see that there is such inclusion. Such Village
Panchayat and societies are never expected or required to make
application and the aforesaid provisions like Rule 36 is only
WP No. 2768/17
enabling provision to see that the errors committed are
corrected. When the authority itself has not discharged the duty,
it may not lie in the mouth of the authority that the claims were
not made in time. In any case, in the present matter, claims
were made before three days fixed for last date for nomination.
In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that the
authority, respondent No. 4 has committed serious error in
rejecting the claims of the petitioners. It appears that the same
A.G.P. and same counsel for respondent Nos. 7 and 8 had argued
in Writ Petition No. 1669/2017. In any case, this Court cannot
take different view than the view taken by the other Judge in
aforesaid matter.
5) In the result, the petition is allowed. The order made
by respondent No. 4 - District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
Societies is hereby set aside. The claims of all the petitioners are
allowed and they are included in voters list. It is made clear that
the right will be limited only to vote in the election.
Authenticated copy is allowed to both the sides.
[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]
ssc/
