Bombay High Court
Vijay S/O Trambak Ingle vs Rambhau S/O Ukarda Dhage And ... on 15 November, 2021
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
1 24.MCA.1171-17 & Ors IN WP. 916-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 1171 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO. 241 OF 2021
IN
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 1171 OF 2017
( Vijay s/o. Trambak Ingle Vs. Rambhau s/o. Ukarda Dhage & Ors. )
WITH
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 810 OF 2018
( G.Y. Khillari Vs. Rambhau s/o. Ukarda Dhage & Ors. )
WITH
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 811 OF 2018
(Gitesh Chandra Prabhakar SableVs.Rambhau s/o.Ukarda Dhage & Ors. )
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 916 OF 2016 (D)
( Rambhau s/o. Ukarda Dhage & Ors.
Vs.
The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Khamgaon & Ors. )
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. M.V. Samarth, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. V.P. Ingle, Advocate for the
Applicant/Petitioner in MCA No. 1171/2017.
Mr. A.H. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 in all matters.
Ms. Tajwar Khan, AGP for the Respondent No.2/State in all matters.
Mr. Firdos T. Mirza, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 in MCA
No. 1171/2017.
Mr. Firdos T. Mirza, Advocate for the Applicant/Petitioner in MCA Nos.
810/2018 & 811/2018.
Mr. M.V. Samarth, Senior Advocate a/b Mr. V.P. Ingle, Advocate for the
Respondent No. 3 in MCA No. 810/2018 & Respondent No. 4 in MCA
No. 811/2018.
::: Uploaded on - 16/11/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 17/11/2021 02:42:03 :::
2 24.MCA.1171-17 & Ors IN WP. 916-16.odt
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATED : 15th NOVEMBER, 2021.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Respondent No. 3 is no more.
2. All these review applications, seek review of
the judgment dated 17.02.2017 passed in Writ Petition
No. 916/2016.
3. Mr. Samarth, learned Senior Counsel for the
applicant/petitioner contends that the original petitioner
had an alternate remedy of an appeal under Section 152
of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960
(hereinafter to be referred as "the M.C.S. Act"). The
petition was filed after a period of 18 months from the
date of auction. The judgment in Kisan Vikas Ginning
Pressing Ltd., Aurangabad Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others, reported in 2001(2) Mh.L.J. 458, was not
applicable as it was on different facts, there being no
resolution in the present matter and the existence of the
affidavit of the Registrar indicating that there was no
proposal received of liquidation. He further submits that
S.M. Kamble Vs. Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
reported in 2007(6) Mh.L.J. 890, is not attracted.
Relying upon Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767, it is submitted
that the writ court, in writ jurisdiction under article 227
would not have the authority to set aside a duly
registered sale-deed, which could only be the domain of
the Cooperative Court under Section 91 of the M.C.S. Act
3 24.MCA.1171-17 & Ors IN WP. 916-16.odt
or the Civil Court. Learned Senior Counsel therefore
submits, that the judgment dated 17.02.2017, needs to
be reviewed.
4. I am not inclined to accept the argument
regarding alternate remedy under Section 152 of the
M.C.S. Act for the reason that the question of alternate
remedy, has been considered by this Court while passing
the judgment sought to be reviewed, and therefore, the
Court was conscious of the fact of the existence of the
alternate remedy while passing the same, inspite of
which, the petition was entertained considering the facts
available on record, and therefore, this cannot be a
ground for review.
5. Insofar as, the applicability of the aforesaid
two judgments are concerned, this Court has found, that
the continuation of the original respondent No. 3, was
not only illegal, but also beyond the statutory period of 6
months as contemplated by Section 77A (3) of the M.C.S.
Act and so also the sale conducted by the respondent
No. 3 was contrary to the requirement of Section 77A (2)
of the M.C.S. Act, in view of which this ground also does
not appeal to me.
6. Mr. Mirza, learned counsel for the
respondent No.3 submits that in pursuance to the inquiry
directed by this Court, the concerned Registrar as well as
the Administrator i.e. the original respondent No. 2 has
been found to be guilty and has been punished,
considering which, I do not feel inclined to exercise the
4 24.MCA.1171-17 & Ors IN WP. 916-16.odt
powers of review, and therefore, the review applications
are dismissed. Needless to say, that the auction purchaser
i.e. the review applicant, in review application
No. 1171/2017, namely Shri Vijay Trambak Ingle, will be
entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs.17,58,375/-
alongwith accrued interest thereupon till date, as that is
the amount deposited by him in the auction for purchase
of one of the properties.
7. The Civil Application (CAO) No. 241/2021
for withdrawal of the amount stands disposed of in view
of the above order.
8. By an order dated 20.02.2019, this Court
had issued notices to the Officers mentioned therein
namely Chandrakant Dalvi, Dr. Vijay Zade and Satish K.
Soni for having not completed the inquiry within time.
Thereafter compliance affidavit has been filed on record
on 01.09.2021, alongwith the final order of the Hon'ble
Governor dated 09.01.2020, whereby penalty has been
imposed upon the then Assistant Registrar Cooperative
Societies, Khamgaon, regarding stoppage of his
increments for the further period of 3 years from the date
of the order. It is submitted by Mr. Mirza, learned
counsel, that this is sufficient compliance, and therefore,
the contempt notices issued to those Officers, need to be
dropped, on account of the contempt having being
purged. No doubt that there is delay in the matter of
conducting the inquiry as directed by this Court against
the persons indicated therein, however, since the inquiry
has been completed and the guilty person punished, I do
5 24.MCA.1171-17 & Ors IN WP. 916-16.odt
not see any reason for carrying the matter any further.
Suffice it to say that in case these Officers or for that
matter any officer of the State indulges into an act of
non-compliance of specific direction of this Court,
he/they would be liable to be punished for contempt of
this Court and further consequence as the law may so
permit.
JUDGE
SD. Bhimte
