Vardhaman Multistate ... vs The Union Of India And Another on 15 January, 2018
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
1) Writ Petition Nos. 5543/2013 and 4904/2013 are filed to
WP Nos. 5543/13 & Ors.
respondent No. 2 and also for the relief of quashing and setting
aside the said order. Further, the relief of mandamus, direction is
claimed against respondent No. 2 to see that respondent No. 2 does
29.5.2013. Direction is also claimed for setting aside circular dated
23.8.2013. Writ Petition No. 710/2014 is filed to challenge the order
made by respondent No. 2 by which the application filed by the
Society under Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2002 for short) is rejected.
claimed in the aforesaid two writ petitions. Both the sides are heard.
registration under the provisions of the Act of 2002. The petitioners
mentioned in the order. The conditions are as under :-
2. Verification certificate of the background and
WP Nos. 5543/13 & Ors.
other credentials of the Chief Promoter/promoters duly
certified by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies of
the State where Registered Office of the Society is
proposed to be located.
3. Submission of N.O.C. from the concerned
Registrar of Co-operative Societies shall also be
applicable to the existing societies which desire to
extend their area of operations to other States/U.T."
3) The submissions made show that in the past, no rules
were framed under the Act of 2002 with regard to aforesaid
requirements, but by amendment of Rules, with effect from
17.8.2016 such requirements are brought in existence. The learned
counsels for petitioners submitted that as there applications were
pending from prior to the date of amendment, they cannot be asked
to comply the new provisions introduced by amendment of 2016.
This submission cannot be accepted in law. If application for getting
such registration is pending and the new procedure or new
requirement comes in to force, the applicant needs to follow that
procedure and fulfill the requirements mentioned by way of
amendment.
4) The learned counsels for the petitioners from the three
proceedings submitted that the Registrar appointed under the
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960 has issued circular
WP Nos. 5543/13 & Ors.
dated 23.8.2013 and in that circular for issuing no objection
certificate mentioned in aforesaid order of Central Registrar of Co-
operative Societies, the applicant is required to comply with the
following conditions :-
(i) The applicant must have collected share capital
of atleast Rs. one crore.
(ii) The applicant who wants to have registered
office in Maharashtra needs to have atleast one
thousand shareholders who are residents of
Maharashtra.
Some other requirements are also mentioned which are with regard
to the Chief Promoters and promoters, but argument was not
advanced on those requirements.
5) The learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that in
view of provision of section 6 (2) (a) of the Act of 2002 the
application needs to be signed only by 50 persons from each of the
State concerned and so, the Registrar under Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960 could not have put a condition to have
one thousand residents of Maharashtra State as members. On this,
the learned counsel for respondents submitted that the condition
mentioned in section 6 (2) (a) of the Act is with regard to signing of
application filed for registration and it is not with regard to the
WP Nos. 5543/13 & Ors.
requirement of minimum members for formation of Multi-State Co-
operative Society. This Court holds that there is force in this
submission. Further, in Constitution of India the subject of co-
operative society is mentioned at Sr. No. 32 as State subject. The
learned counsel for respondents submitted that the Central
Government has made the Act of 2002 for replacing previous
enactments which were of 1942 and 1984 and the Act is made only
for those societies which intend to do the business in more than one
State. He submitted that the machinery in co-operative sector is
created by the State Government and the authority created under
the Act of 2002 has the power to collect necessary information in
public interest. He drew the attention of this Court to the provision
of section 6(3) of the Act of 2002 which is as under :-
"6. Application for registration.-
(1) ...........
(2) .........
(3) The application shall be accompanied by four
copies of the proposed bye-laws of the multi-State Co-
operative society and the persons by whom or on
whose behalf such application is made shall furnish
such information in regard to the society as the
Central Registrar may require."
6) This Court holds that there is force in the submission
made by the learned counsel for respondents that in public interest,
WP Nos. 5543/13 & Ors.
the information which is sought by the Central Registrar, can be
collected by him. Further, for giving no objection certificates as
required by the Central Registrar, the machinery of the State
Government can ask to satisfy some conditions. The learned counsel
for respondents has produced on record the circular issued by
Registrar appointed under Maharashtra Act and dated 3.2.2014. It
shows that for area like New Mumbai, the Society to be registered
under Maharashtra Act needs to have atleast five thousand members
and Rs. one crore as collected capital. For small cities, having
municipalities, the members need to be two thousand and other
particular places are also mentioned with specific requirements. It is
not disputed that the objections raised by the authority are in
accordance with this circular.
7) The circular of the State Government shows that for
registration of a society under the State Act, there are some
requirements and the State authority wants to see that those
requirements are complied with by the applicants who want to get
registration under the Central Act of 2002. The submissions made
and the record show that these requirements are made to protect
the interest of public at large. Many incidents of fraud were noticed
in such societies and even the Central Registrar had noticed such
incidents in the societies registered under the Act of 2002 and so,
WP Nos. 5543/13 & Ors.
steps were taken to see that precautionary measures are taken. The
aforesaid measures are such precautionary measures.
8) In view of the aforesaid position and particularly, due to
the circumstance that co-operation is State subject, the State
Government can impose the conditions which are there for the
registration of societies under the State Act for the societies like
present one also. When under the Rules made under the Central Act
of 2002, such requirement is there and when the authority of the
State Government under the State Act which can issue certificate,
has drawn attention to requirements which need to be complied with
as per the policy of State Government in that regard, the applicants
need to comply them. This Court sees no reason to interfere in the
objections taken for registration in first two cases and the order of
rejection made in the last case on aforesaid grounds.
9) The learned counsels for petitioners placed reliance on
some observations made by Kerala High Court in the case reported
as AIR 2016 Ker 107 [Haldar Vikas Credit Co-operative
Society Ltd. Vs. Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies
and Ors.] and also some observations made by this Court in the
case reported as 2008 (1) Mh.L.J. 3000 [Adarsh Ginning and
Pressing Factory Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.]. In the
WP Nos. 5543/13 & Ors.
case cited supra, Kerala High Court considered the matter from
different angle, the possibility of delegation of power of Central
Registrar. Further, the case was decided on 18.8.2015 when the
amendment came to be made in Central Rules in the year 2016. In
view of this circumstance and subsequent developments, this Court
holds that the observations made by the learned Judge of Kerala
High Court can be of no use to the petitioners. The facts of the
second case cited supra were altogether different and they were with
regard to the powers of recovery officers created by the State Act
when such society gets converted in to Co-operative Society under
the Act of 2002. The point involved in the present matter was not
involved in the case decided by this Court in the year 2007 cited
supra. This Court holds that the applicants need to follow the
procedure now laid down and that procedure is in public interest. In
the result, all the three writ petitions stand dismissed.
[SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
ssc/
