Bombay High Court
Sanjay Dattatraya Kulkarni ... vs Shrinivas Bajirao Alias Balajirao ... on 25 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:23197
1
7345.2022WP.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7345 OF 2022
1. Sanjay Dattatraya Kulkarni (Talegaonkar),
Age : 52 years, Occ : Agri and Business,
R/o Talegaon, Tq. Umri, Dist. Nanded.
2. Lingram Digambar Kawale
Age : 62 years, Occ : Agriculture,
R/o Sindhi, Tq. Umri, Dist. Nanded.
3. Bapurao Tulshiram Kadam (Patil)
Age : 52 years, Occ : Agriculture,
R/o Karkala, Tq. Umri, Dist. Nanded.
4. Marotirao Venkatrao Kawle
Age : 52 years, Occ : Agriculture,
R/o Sindhi, Tq. Umri, Dist. Nanded.
..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Shrinivas Bajirao @ Balajirao Deshmukh-Gorthekar
Age : 65 years, Occ : Agri.,
R/o Gortha, Ta. Umri, Dist. Nanded
Chairman Umri Sahakari Ginning and
Pressing Society, Umri, Tq. Umri,
Dist. Nanded.
2. Ganesh Sadhu Sawant
Age : 55 years, Occ : Business,
R/o Gortha, Tq. Umri, Dist. Nanded
Director, Umri Sahakari Ginning and
Pressing Society, Umri, Tq. Umri,
Dist. Nanded
3. Umri Sahakari Ginning and
Pressing Society, Umri, Tq. Umri,
Dist. Nanded
Through its Manager
2
7345.2022WP.odt
4. District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Nanded,
Dist. Nanded.
5. The Assistant Registrar,
Co-operative Society, Umri,
Dist. Nanded.
6. A.G. Ghogare
Office Superintendent,
District Registrar Office,
Co-operative Societies Nanded.
(Deleted as per Court's order
dated 14.07.2022)
7. The Divisional Joint Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Latur,
Tq. and Dist. Latur.
8. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Co-operative Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
9. The State of Maharashtra
Through Hon'ble Minister,
Co-operative Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
(Deleted as per Court's order
dated 14.07.2022)
10. Shri K.S. Barkul
Assistant Registrar (Administration,
Co-operative Societies, Nanded,
Tq. Nanded, Dist. Nanded
Administrator Umri Sahakari
Ginning and Pressing Society,
Umri, Tq. Umri, Dist. Nanded
(Added as per Court's order
dated 03.07.2023) ..RESPONDENTS
3
7345.2022WP.odt
...
Mr. S.V. Natu h/f Mr.A.V. Indrale Patil, Advocate for the
petitioners
Mr.S.B. Gahtol Patil, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 3 and
10.
Dr. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, Addl. G.P. for the
respondent/State.
...
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
RESERVED ON : 11th AUGUST, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON: 25th AUGUST, 2025
JUDGMENT :
The dispute in the present petition pertains to
Umri Sahakari Ginning and Pressing Society, Umri (hereinafter
referred to as "the said society"), which is registered under the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter
referred to as "the M.C.S. Act"). The petitioners are members
of the said society. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are Chairman and
Director respectively of the said society.
2. The petitioner nos.1 to 3 and other members had
lodged a complaint dated 02.03.2020 with the Hon'ble
Minister, Ministry of Co-operation, Government of
Maharashtra, levelling certain allegations with respect to
working of the said society, particularly with respect to
attempt of members of the Managing Committee to sell the
7345.2022WP.odt
land of the society by under-valuing the same. Pursuant to
the said complaint, the District Deputy Registrar (D.D.R.) had
called upon the Assistant Registrar to furnish a report with
respect to issues raised in the said complaint. The Assistant
Registrar submitted report dated 18.11.2020 stating that the
society, which was formed for the purpose of ginning and
pressing of cotton was non-functional and all the work of
ginning and pressing was stopped from the year 2009. It is
stated that society did not purchase cotton and also did not
carry out any operation of ginning and pressing for past
several years. It is stated that the entire income of the society
was only from rent received from the tenants.
3. In this backdrop and in the light of the
observations in the report that society had become
dysfunctional, D.D.R. passed order of interim liquidation
under Section 102(1)(c)(ii) and (iv) of the M.C.S. Act on
08.02.2021. The said order was assailed by Respondent No.3 -
Society and Respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No.3683/2021.
After filing of the petition, the D.D.R. had withdrawn the
order dated 08.02.2021. The petition was disposed of in view
of the aforesaid with liberty to the respondents to initiate
7345.2022WP.odt
fresh proceedings on the same grounds and take fresh decision
in the matter after granting opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners in the said petition (respondent nos.2 and 3 in the
present petition). Thereafter, the D.D.R. passed interim order
of liquidation under the same provision i.e. Section 102(1)(c)
(ii) and (iv) of the M.C.S. Act on 25.06.2021. It is observed in
the order that the society had stopped the work of ginning and
pressing for past around 18 years and that it was apparent
from the conduct of the office bearers of the society that they
were not interested in making the unit of the society
functional. It is also observed that the audit from the years
2009 to 2016 was not conducted regularly and was done at
once at the end of the year 2016. This order of interim
liquidation was followed by subsequent order of final
liquidation dated 29.07.2021.
4. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 preferred an Appeal
against the order of liquidation under Section 104 of the
M.C.S. Act. The said Appeal was registered as Appeal
Application No.88/2021. The said Appeal came to be
dismissed vide order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the
Divisional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Respondent
7345.2022WP.odt
Nos.1 to 3 preferred a Revision against the said orders, being
Revision Application No.581/2021 before the Hon'ble Minister
of Co-operation and Marketing, Government of Maharashtra.
The Hon'ble Minister has allowed the said Revision
Application vide order dated 23.06.2022. The order of
liquidation dated 29.07.2021 came to be quashed by the said
order passed by the Revisional Authority.
5. The petitioners, who are members of the society,
who had lodged the complaint, pursuant to which inquiry was
ordered and the order of liquidation came to be passed have
challenged the said orders by filing present petition.
6. Mr. S.V. Natu, learned Advocate for the petitioners
contends that the Hon'ble Minister has erred in law in
allowing the Revision Application. It is contended that the
Hon'ble Minister has transgressed the limits of revisional
jurisdiction while passing the impugned order. He contends
that the impugned order, apart from being unsustainable on
merits, is also liable to be quashed only on the ground that the
Hon'ble Minister had heard the matter on 14.12.2021 and
7345.2022WP.odt
passed the impugned order on 23.06.2022, after a period of
around six months and nine days. He states that the
inordinate delay in deciding the matter itself is a ground for
setting aside the impugned order. He also states that the
impugned order is passed only in the wake of chaotic
situation that had arisen in June, 2022 relating to the
formation of Government. He states that this was the period
when a political party which was the part of Government was
about to split and there was a complete confusion and
uncertainty with respect to existence of the Government. He
argues that it is apparent from the order passed by the Hon'ble
Minister that the society was not functioning for inordinately
long period, which is ground for passing order of liquidation,
which was rightly invoked by the competent authority namely
the D.D.R. He also contends that the grounds for liquidation
under Section 102(1)(c)(iv) were also established, in as much
as, the society had let out its properties for a pittance and was
also not maintaining accounts and carrying out audit
regularly.
7. Per-contra, the learned Additional Government
Pleader and the learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
7345.2022WP.odt
support the impugned order. It is contended that the society
was unable to continue with the operations of ginning and
pressing since the plant and machinery had become outdated.
The learned Advocates contend that it was necessary to
generate funds for installation of new plant and machinery for
which it had become necessary to sell a part of lands owned
by the society. The learned Advocates contend that the society
owns large tracks of land and it was necessary to sell some
portion of these lands in order to generate funds. It is
contended that the Hon'ble Minister was completely justified
in granting one chance to the society to recommence its
operations. They contend that the decision of the Hon'ble
Minister is in general interest of the members and farming
community in the vicinity of the society. The learned Advocate
for respondent nos.1 to 3 has placed reliance on several
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also this Court to
contend that the scope of interference in a petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited and that
this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India should not convert itself into Court
of Appeal to re-appreciate the facts or to substitute its own
decision with the decision rendered by the authorities.
7345.2022WP.odt
Likewise, he has also placed reliance on some decisions of this
Court interpreting Section 72 of the M.C.S. Act, wherein it is
held that final authority of every society is vested with the
general body of the members and that decisions taken by the
general body in the general body meeting are binding on the
society and its members. He has also placed reliance on
certain authorities to contend that the petitioners do not have
locus to challenge the revisional order passed by the Hon'ble
Minister. Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the
matter of Hiradgaon Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society
Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, 2014(2) Mh.L.J.
676, he contends that the State has wide powers while
exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 154 of the
M.C.S. Act and the power of this Court while testing the said
order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited.
He has placed reliance on paragraph nos.14 and 15
particularly, which read as under:-
"14. Section 154 of the M.C.S. Act confers revisional
powers to the State. Scope of the revisional powers is
specified under Section 154 of the M.C.S. Act. A
Minister enjoys revisional powers under Section 154
of the M.C.S. Act, not only on application of any party,
but suo moto may call, examine and may consider the
7345.2022WP.odt
legality and decision and order of the Sub-ordinate
Officer and also verify the regularity of those
proceedings and if at all it appears to the Honourable
Minister, then he may modify, annul or reverse such
order. Thus, the State has wide powers and the State
can modify the order passed by the Sub-ordinate
Officer and so also can reverse the said order
However, it is necessary that the revisional authority
should be satisfied that the order passed below is not
proper and is illegal. This Court has limited powers
under Article 227 of the Constitution while issuing a
writ of certiorari. Though these are plenary powers,
the High Court may refuse to invoke the writ
jurisdiction, even if a possible view is taken, out of
two available views by the revisional authority. If the
order passed by the revisional authority is erroneous,
ex facie, then interference under the writ jurisdiction
is justifiable. On the background of this legal position,
the proceedings before the Court are examined.
15. While invoking writ jurisdiction no need to go
into the merits of the matter, i.e. whether a particular
society was having how many members, what was its
financial capacity etc. The order can be tested only on
the point of illegality which should be self-evident."
8. The learned Advocate also contends that the
order passed by the Appellate Authority is unsustainable since
7345.2022WP.odt
it is a non-speaking order.
9. Heard respective Advocates as aforesaid, perused
the orders passed by the authorities and other documents
placed on record.
10. It appears that the fact that the society is not
carrying out the operations of ginning and pressing, which is
the chief objective of the society, is not in dispute. Likewise, it
is also matter of record that audit of accounts of society was
not carried out regularly in the past.
11. The learned Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 3
is justified in contending that this Court, in exercise of its
supervisory jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India cannot sit in Appeal over the impugned order passed
by the Hon'ble Minister and that this Court should not act as
an Appellate Court while dealing with the petition challenging
the said order. Having said so, it also needs to be stated that it
is well within the authority of this Court to step-in in cases
where the authorities do not act within the scope of their
7345.2022WP.odt
jurisdiction. In the event it is found that the authorities have
exceeded their jurisdiction or have not exercised jurisdiction
in accordance with law, it will be open for this Court to
interfere with the matter in exercise of its powers under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The judgment in the
matter of Celina Coelho Pereira and others Vs. Ulhas
Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and others, 2010(1) SCC 217, relied
upon by the petitioners clarifies this legal position. In the light
of this settled legal position that the order passed by the
Hon'ble Minister needs to be tested.
12. The impugned order is passed in exercise of
powers vested under Section 154 of the M.C.S. Act. Power
under Section 154 can be exercised either on an application or
suo-moto. The scope of jurisdiction under Section 154 is to
test the legality of an order passed by an Officer under the
M.C.S. Act or propriety of any decision or order passed under
the Act. Likewise, it is also open for the Hon'ble Minister to
examine the regularity of proceedings in which orders are
passed by the Officers functioning under the Act. Thus, the
jurisdiction under Section 154 is restricted to examining the
legality or propriety of orders passed by the authorities under
7345.2022WP.odt
the Act and/or to examine regularity of proceedings in which
such orders are passed. In exercise of powers of revision under
Section 154, the Hon'ble Minister cannot re-appreciate the
evidence or substitute his discretion for the discretion
exercised by the concerned officers.
13. In this context, when the impugned order passed
by the Hon'ble Minister is seen, it is found that, the Hon'ble
Minister has not recorded any finding that the order of
liquidation passed by the D.D.R. is illegal or improper. The
Hon'ble Minister has also not found any fault with the
procedure followed by the said authority while passing the
order of liquidation. The Hon'ble Minister has observed that it
will be appropriate that one more opportunity is granted to
the society to recommence its activities. While arriving at this
conclusion, the Hon'ble Minister has observed that the society
was trying to generate funds by selling some of its immovable
properties. It is observed that litigation was also on going with
respect to decision taken by the society to sell its properties,
and therefore, the properties could not be sold to generate
funds.
7345.2022WP.odt
14. Perusal of the impugned order will thus
demonstrate that the Hon'ble Minister has quashed the order
of appointment of liquidator, although it is not found that the
order suffers from any illegality or impropriety or that the
proceeding in which the order is passed suffers from any
irregularity. It is apparent that Hon'ble Minister has exceeded
his jurisdiction while deciding the revision under Section 154
of the M.C.S. Act by substituting his discretion with that of
D.D.R. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order
passed by the Hon'ble Minister suffers from a jurisdictional
error. In this regard, it will be appropriate to refer to the
judgment in the matter of Hiradgaon Vividh Karyakari
Sahakari Seva Society Ltd., (supra) relied upon by the learned
counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3, wherein it is held that,
although, the power under Section 154 is wide and includes
power to modify and also reverse the orders impugned, this
Court has categorically held that the revisional authority
should first satisfy itself that the order impugned is not proper
and is illegal. Revisional jurisdiction under Section 154 can be
invoked only if the order is improper or illegal. In view of the
above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order dated
23.06.2022 cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.
7345.2022WP.odt
15. The contention of learned Advocate for the
petitioners that the impugned order is passed after an
inordinate delay of over six months and that too in the light of
political uncertainty creating existential crises of the
Government is not being tested in view of the finding arrived
at by this Court that the impugned order is passed by
exceeding the scope of jurisdiction under Article 154 of the
M.C.S. Act.
16. Mr.S.B. Ghatol Patil, learned Advocate for
respondent nos.1 to 3 states that the order dismissing the
appeal passed by the learned Divisional Joint Registrar is also
unsustainable, in as much as, the appeal preferred by
respondent nos.1 to 3 is dismissed by non-speaking order.
Drawing attention of this Court to the said order, he contends
that the appellate authority merely recorded rival contentions
and has dismissed the Appeal without recording any reasons.
He points out from the order that, although, the order runs
into several pages, only reason recorded while dismissing the
Appeal is as under:-
7345.2022WP.odt
"izfroknh dz-4 rs 11 iSdh mejh ftfuax o izsflax lgdkjh
lkslk;Vh fy- mejh ;k laLFksps lapkyd o lHkkln R;kp cjkscj
brj 'ksrdjh ;kaps Eg.k.ks fopkjkr ?ksrk vkf.k izfroknh dz-1 ;kaps
ys[kh Eg.k.ksuqlkj] rlsp lquko.kh njE;ku lknj dsysY;k miyC/k
dkxni=kaps voyksdu dsys vlrk mejh ftfuax o izsflax lgdkjh
lkslk;Vh e-mejh gh laLFkk eatwj mifo/khrhy mnsn'kkizek.ks
dkedkt djhr ulwu lnj laLFksps dkedkt c&;kp o"kkZiklwu can
vlY;kps fnlwu ;srs- dfjrk [kkyhy izek.ks vkns'k ikfjr
dj.;kr ;sr vkgs-"
True translation of the above portion made by the
Chief Translator of PG Cell of this Court is as under :-
"Considering the statements of the directors and
members of the Umri Ginning and Pressing
Cooperative Society Limited, Umri, respondents Nos.4
to 11, as well as other farmers, as also the written
submissions of the respondent No.1, and the available
documents submitted during the hearing, it appears
that the Umri Ginning and Pressing Cooperative
Society Limited, Umri is not functioning as per the
objectives of the approved bye-laws and the
functioning of the said society has been closed for
many years. The following order is hereby passed."
The learned advocate, therefore, contends that the
appellate order is also unsustainable and is liable to be
7345.2022WP.odt
quashed and set aside. His contention is that although, the
Hon'ble Minister has not set aside the appellate order on
this ground, the contents of the order are a matter of
record and perusal of the order passed by the appellate
authority gives rise to only one conclusion that the said
order is non-speaking order, which is unsustainable and
accordingly, it is liable to be quashed.
17. Mr. Natu, learned Advocate for the petitioners
states that the scope of present petition is to decide
correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Hon'ble
Minister. He contends that whether to interfere or not with the
order passed by the appellate authority should be left to be
decided by the Hon'ble Minister. His contention is that the
order passed by the Hon'ble Minister deserves to be quashed
and set aside and the matter should be remanded to the
Hon'ble Minister to decide the revision afresh.
18. Having considered the rival submissions, it is
apparent that the order passed by the appellate authority is
clearly unsustainable since it is a non-speaking order. The
7345.2022WP.odt
Appellate Authority has not dealt with contentions raised by
respondent nos.1 to 3, who had preferred Appeal against the
order of liquidation passed by the D.D.R. A non-speaking
order is dead letter in the eyes of law. The Appellate Authority
has virtually deprived respondent nos.1 to 3 of right to appeal
which is valuable statutory right. Remedy of appeal would be
rendered meaningless, if appellate authorities are allowed to
decide appeals without recording any reasons and without
dealing with rival contentions raised in appeal.
19. Normally on finding that the order passed by the
revisional authority, which is impugned in the present petition,
is unsustainable, the matter would have been remanded to the
revisional authority to decide the revision afresh. However, in
the facts of the present case, it is obvious that the order passed
by the appellate authority is completely unsustainable. There
cannot be any second opinion about the fact that the said
order is non-speaking order, which cannot withstand the
scrutiny of law. In the considered opinion of this Court, it will,
therefore, be expedient to allow the petition in part by
maintaining the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister to the
extent it has quashed and set aside the order passed by the
7345.2022WP.odt
appellate authority. The Appeal needs to be restored to file
with directions to the appellate authority to decide the Appeal
afresh by dealing with all the rival contentions and by passing
the speaking and well reasoned order. In the result, the
petition is partly allowed as under:-
ORDER
(i) The order dated 23.06.2022 passed by the Hon'ble
Minister of Co-operation and Marketing, Government of
Maharashtra in Revision REv-2021-Pra.Kra 589/15(s)
Shri Shrinivas Bajirao Deshmukh and two others Vs. Divisional
Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Latur Division, Latur
and others and the order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the
Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Latur, in
Appeal No.88/2021 are quashed and set aside.
(ii) Appeal No.88/2021 decided by the Divisional Joint
Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Latur is restored to file of the
said authority with directions to decide the said Appeal by
dealing with all the rival contentions and passing a reasoned
order.
(iii) The parties shall appear before the Divisional Joint
Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Latur on 08.09.2025. The
7345.2022WP.odt
parties to note that separate notice for appearance will not be
issued.
(iv) The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
Latur is directed to decide the Appeal, as early as possible and
in any case, before 31st December, 2025.
(v) Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(vi) The Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.]
sga/2025
