Bombay High Court
India Agro Farms Co Operative Society ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 12 February, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:3960-DB
1 WP-10727-23.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10727 OF 2023
Dhule Hamal Mapadi Kamgar Sahakari
Patpedhi Limited, Dhule
Market Yard, Dhule
Through its Secretary
Bhagwat Bacchuba Chitalkar
Age 44 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o. Plot No.39, Maniknagar,
Dhule, District Dhule .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary for
Food, Civil Supply and Consumer
Protection Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Collector, Dhule,
District Dhule
3. The District Supply Officer,
Dhule, District Dhule .. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15208 OF 2023
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 10727 OF 2023
India Agro Farms Co-operative Society Ltd.,
Through its Chairman/Secretary,
Devkabai w/o. Nathu Patil,
Age 58 years, Occu. Labour
R/o. Shop No.25, Khanderao Mandir Road,
Shirpur, Tq.Shirpur, District Dhule .. Applicant
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary for
Food, Civil Supply and Consumer
Protection Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2 WP-10727-23.odt
2. The Collector, Dhule,
District Dhule
3. The District Supply Officer,
Dhule, District Dhule
4. Dhule Hamal Mapadi Kamgar Sahakari
Patpedhi Limited, Dhule
Market Yard, Dhule
Through its Secretary
Bhagwat Bacchuba Chitalkar,
Age 44 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o. Plot No.39, Maniknagar,
Dhule, District Dhule .. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11896 OF 2023
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 10727 OF 2023
Hamal Mapadi and Malwahatukdar
Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Shirpur,
Through its Chairman/Secretary,
Bhavsaheb Rawan Patil (Deore),
Age 58 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o. Old Bhampur, Post Bhamte,
Tq. Shirpur, District Dhule
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary for
Food, Civil Supply and Consumer
Protection Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Collector, Dhule,
District Dhule
3. The District Supply Officer,
Dhule, District Dhule
4. Dhule Hamal Mapadi Kamgar Sahakari
Patpedhi Limited, Dhule
Market Yard, Dhule
Through its Secretary
Bhagwat Bacchuba Chitalkar,
Age 44 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o. Plot No.39, Maniknagar,
Dhule, District Dhule .. Respondents
3 WP-10727-23.odt
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11691 OF 2024
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 10727 OF 2023
Mata Vaishnavi Devi Hamal Kamgar
Sahakari Sanstha Limited
At Chimthane, Tq. Sindhkheda,
District Dhule
Through its Chairman/Secretary
Gopal s/o. Dilip Mali,
Age 30 years, Occu. Business,
R/o. At post Chimthane, Tq. Sindhkheda,
District Dhule .. Applicant
Versus
1. Dhule Hamal Mapadi Kamgar Sahakari
Patpedhi Limited, Dhule
Market Yard, Dhule
Through its Secretary
Bhagwat Bacchuba Chitalkar,
Age 44 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o. Plot No.39, Maniknagar,
Dhule, District Dhule
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary for
Food, Civil Supply and Consumer
Protection Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032
3. The Collector, Dhule,
District Dhule
4. The District Supply Officer,
Dhule, District Dhule .. Respondents
Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. A. V. Hon,
Advocate for Petitioner in W.P.No.10727/2023 and Respondent No.4
in CA/15208 and 11896/2023 and Respondent No.1 in CA/11691/
2024;
Mr. Ujjwal S. Patil, Advocate for Applicant in CA/15208/2023
Mr. Amol S. Sawant, Advocate for Applicant in CA/11896/2023;
Mr. Ajay D. Pawar, Advocate for Applicant in CA/11691/2024;
4 WP-10727-23.odt
Mr. A. S. Shinde, Additional Government Pleader for Respondents
No.1 to 3/State in Writ Petition and CA/15208 and 11896/2023 and
Respondent No.2 to 4/State in CA/11691/ 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8543 OF 2024
India Agro Farms Co-operative Society Ltd.,
Through its Chairman/Secretary,
Nathuthu S/o. Dhoman Patil,
Age 72 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o. Shop No.25, Khanderao Mandir Road,
Shirpur, Tal. Shirpur, District Dhule .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary for
Food, Civil Supply and Consumer
Protection Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Collector, Dhule,
District Dhule
3. The District Supply Officer,
Dhule, District Dhule
4. Mata Vaishnav Devi Hamal Kamgar Co-operative
Society Ltd., Through its Chairman/Secretary,
R/o. Chimthana, Tal. Shindkheda,
District Dhule .. Respondents
Mr. Ujwal, S. Patil, Advocate for Petitioner;
Mr. A. S. Shinde, Additional Government Pleader for Respondents
No.1 to 3/State;
Mr. V. B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.4
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 30-01-2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 12-02-2025
5 WP-10727-23.odt
JUDGMENT (PER : S. G. MEHARE, J.) :
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
consent of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the
learned A.G.P. for the State and the learned counsels for the
applicants.
2. The common questions of facts and law are involved in these
petitions. Therefore, we propose to decide them by common order.
3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.10727 of 2023 seeks writ of
certiorari to quash and set aside the communication dated
02.08.2023, whereby it has been communicated to respondent
No.2/the District Collector, Dhule, by respondent No.1 / the
Secretary for Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection
Department that in Government Resolution dated 08.05.2018, if
the earlier contract is over, that contract may further be given to
same agency. However, Government Resolution dated 06.03.2023
was issued and certain provisions have been adopted from
Government Resolution dated 08.05.2018. It has been opined that
in both Government Resolutions, there is no provision for allotting
contract to the Patpedhi i.e. credit society. The another prayer in
this writ petition is, issue a writ of mandamus against respondent
No.2/ Collector, Dhule to consider the representation made by the
petitioner, dated 21.06.2023 in view of the Government Resolution
dated 06.03.2023 and for granting extension to the period of
tender to the petitioner. He also prayed to direct the respondents
6 WP-10727-23.odt
to permit him to participate in the tender process published by
respondent No.2, on 23.08.2023.
4. The applicants, in Civil Applications No.11896 and 15208 of
2023, were the societies participated in the tender process in
question. They have raised objections that earlier tender process
was not in consonance with the Government Resolution dated
12.09.2014. The earlier tender process was carried as per the
Government Resolution dated 08.05.2018. Therefore, the
petitioner cannot claim the benefit of extension of tender period.
It has also been pleaded that pursuant to the tender notice,
technical bid was opened on 20.10.2023 and wrongly decided that
as per order dated 29.08.2023 in this Writ Petition, the tender
process was stayed by this Court and further decision has been
stalled. In nut shell, it has been submitted that the petitioner is
not entitled to its extension. The applicants/societies are parties
interested and the participants in the tender. They are entitled to
intervene in the petition.
5. By way of another Civil Application No.11896 of 2023, the
objection has been raised that the petitioner is not the society
entitled to tender in past. However, inadvertently the tender was
granted. The petitioner is not the society as defined under the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and Rules, 1961 (for
short, "the Act"). Its a credit society. Therefore, as per the
7 WP-10727-23.odt
Government Resolution, the tender cannot be extended further. It
also participated in the tender process. As per clause 5 (17) of the
bye-laws, the petitioner/society is not entitled to participate in the
present tender process. Only the registered Hamal Kamgar Co-
operative Societies are entitled to participate in the tender
process. The earlier tender granted to the petitioner/society was
in contravention of the Government Resolution dated 12.09.2014.
The applicant/society prayed that they are the business interested.
Hence, entitled to intervene.
6. Civil Application No.11691 of 2024 has been filed by the
applicant/society. It is contended that, the petitioner/society who
has been granted ad-hoc tender till the stay order passed in this
Court is adjudicated on merit. It has not participated in the tender
process. However, by way of civil application, it came with a case
that the credit society is not entitled to participate in the tender
process. Hence, nothing survive in the petition. If the writ petition
is allowed, the work order issued in its favour would be affected.
However, the petitioner/society is not claiming any substantial
relief. It is just opposing the writ petition. It did not specifically
claim that it deserves continuation of the tender. It is not
participant in the tender process. The applicant/society is an ad-
hoc contractor to meet the requirement. Therefore, we are of the
opinion that the applicant/society has no right to intervene.
Hence, Civil Application No.11691 of 2024 stands rejected.
8 WP-10727-23.odt
7. The applicant/society in Civil Application No.11896 of 2023
has also filed independent writ petition No.8543 of 2024. It has
come with a case that the respondent No.2/ the Collector, Dhule
issued notice dated 23.08.2023 inviting tender. It has participated
in the tender process. It was not impleaded as respondent party in
writ petition No.10727 of 2023. It reiterated an opinion of the
technical re-tender bid and wrong interpretation of order dated
29.08.2023. He impugned the ad-hoc tender granted to
respondent No.4 by order dated 10.07.2024 and prayed to quash
and set aside communication dated 10.07.2024 and also seeks
quashment of communication dated 01.02.2024 staying the tender
process for allotment of tender. It has prayed for a direction to
complete the process of tender in question.
8. Mr. Hon, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has
vehemently argued that the petitioner was the society registered
under the Act. The petitioner's earlier tender for loading and
unloading the grains was accepted. The said tender was for three
years and that period is likely to over. Hence, it applied for
extension/continuation of the contract as the petitioner expressed
willingness to continue with the earlier contract as per the terms of
the Government Resolution. He referred to the Government
Resolution dated 06.03.2023 and pointed out clause (2) which is
about to the extension of the tender. The further extension would
be for three years. He also read clause 12(1) of the said
9 WP-10727-23.odt
Government Resolution, which states about the priority to be given
to the persons named therein. As per the said clause, first
preference is given to the registered porters' co-operative society,
of which the members are Hamal (porters). Clause 12(2) speaks of
preference given to the registered unemployed co-operative
society, if the society under Clause 12(1) is not ready to
participate in the tender. He would submit that in other districts
the similarly situated societies have been given extension.
Therefore, it is apparent discrimination. The opinion expressed
about kind of the society of the petitioner was explained in detail.
However, the authority has incorrectly interpreted the Government
Resolutions dated 08.05.2018 and 06.03.2023. He also referred to
the bye-laws of the society and submit that the society of the
petitioner holds eligibility to participate in the tender. Though the
petitioner/society was entitled, the extension has not been
deliberately granted and by way of impugned communication, he
has not been held eligible to get contract in question. Therefore,
the impugned order deserves to be called back.
9. The learned A.G.P. would submit that the jurisdiction of the
society is restricted to the district only. He would refer to
impugned communication dated 02.08.2023 and argue that it was
in consonance with Government Resolutions dated 08.05.2018 and
06.03.2023. The petitioner/society is not the society eligible to
participate in the tender in question. It is being Patpedhi / credit
10 WP-10727-23.odt
society, its object is altogether different. It is a commercial
society. The earlier tender was contrary to the above Government
Resolution. The communication dated 02.08.2023 is an internal
communication not affecting the petitioner's right. Since the
society of the petitioner is the credit society, it cannot take
advantage of the orders granting extension to the society granted
by another District Collectors.
10. Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for the applicant (one of the
participants) has vehemently argued that as per Section 8 of the
Act read with Rule 4 of 1961 Rules and Clause 13, the petitioner is
credit resource society. He also referred to Rule 8 Clause (1) and
Rule 10 of the Rules. Section 2(25) of the Act defines "resource
society" means a credit society, the object of which is obtaining for
its members of credit, goods or services required by them.
Referring to the bye-laws of the petitioner/society, particularly
clause 17, he would submit that the petitioner is not the society
eligible to participate in tender and for extension. The
communication dated 02.08.2023 has clarified that in the
Government Resolution dated 06.03.2023 and clauses 12(1) and
12(2). It has been clarified, who is entitled to participate in tender
in question. He relied on certain case laws, those will be discussed
in the later part.
11. The argument of Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner
is supporting to the argument of Mr. Sawant. He has referred to
11 WP-10727-23.odt
the dates of opening the technical bid, issuing of fresh tender
notice. He has serious grievance about keeping the tender
process pending under the wrong interpretation of the interim
order passed by this Court.
12. So far as Civil Application No.11691 of 2024 is concerned, we
have already expressed taken a need that the applicant/society
has no right to intervene.
13. The case revolves around the eligibility of the petitioner to
participate in the tender process as well as extension of earlier
tender. Undisputedly, earlier the tender was given to the
petitioner. The provisions for extension of the tender are specified
in the Government Resolution dated 06.03.2023. However, by the
impugned communication referring to the clauses 12.1 and 12.2, it
has been opined that in both Government Resolutions, there was
no provision to grant tender to the Patpedhi / credit society. The
terms of eligibility to participate in the tender have been made
known to all. The petitioner has placed on record the bye-laws of
the society registered. The title of the society is "Dhule Hamal
Mapadi Kamgar Sahakari Patpedhi Limited, Dhule". The society of
the petitioner has been classified as "resource society and credit
resource society".
14. Section 2(25) of the Act defines "resource society". It means
a society, the object of which is obtaining for its members of
12 WP-10727-23.odt
credit, goods or services required by them. Rule (4) speaks about
application for registration and registration fees. The fees for
different societies has been prescribed therein. In that Rule,
resource society has to pay specified fees.
15. Rule 10 further provides classification and sub-classification
of societies. Various societies are classified as per Rule 10. In that
Rule, the resource society is sub-classified as credit society. In that
Rule, the example of society following the clause or sub-clause has
also been described. The resource society falls in sub-class, (a)
credit resource society, (b) non-credit resource society and (c)
service resource society.
16. Quoting relevant Sections of the Act and Rules, Mr. Sawant,
learned counsel has correctly pointed out that the object of the
petitioner/society is contrary to the above Government
Resolutions. He has placed on reliance of Jayprakash Raosaheb
Salunke and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others,
2000(3) Mh.L.J. 714. Paragraph No.8 has been referred to. In
this case, it has been held that the provisions of the bye-laws are
not statutory in nature and they do not have an overriding effect
on the provisions of the Rules. Reading the case law, the learned
counsel for the petitioner/society has raised an objection that the
tender cannot be accepted.
17. Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for the applicant/society has
13 WP-10727-23.odt
referred to the judgment of The Co-operative Central Bank
Ltd. And others Vs. The Additional Industrial Tribunal,
Andhra Pradesh and others, 1969 (2) Supreme Court Cases
43. The issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was to interpret
the words "the business of the society", and whether bye-laws of
the co-operative society have force of law. It has been held that
the bye-laws may be binding between the persons affected by
them but they do not have the force of statute.
18. After having gone through the requisite condition for
eligibility to participate in Government Resolutions dated
08.05.2018 and 06.03.2023, there is no reason to doubt the
eligibility of the petitioner. The material placed on record establish
that it is the resource society which is in category of the credit
society. The object of granting tender to the Hamal (Porter) is to
be fulfilled by allotting in the contract of loading and unloading of
food grains to the societies of which members are Hamal (Porter).
It is apparent that earlier tender extended to the petitioner was
due to wrong interpretation of the Government Resolution. It has
been established that the petitioner/society being the resource
society/credit society not eligible to participate in the tender
process as well as not eligible to seek extension as per the terms
of the Government Resolution dated 26.03.2023. We do not find
substance in the petition.
14 WP-10727-23.odt
19. In view of the above, Writ Petition No.10727 of 2023 stands
dismissed. All civil applications are disposed of in above terms.
20. Writ Petition No.8543 of 2024 is pertaining to the ad-hoc
arrangement made by the Government till the dispute is decided
by this Court and granting ad-hoc contract to respondent No.4.
Since the order impugned before this Court was stayed, it was a
time gap arrangement to fulfill the object of the tender. No relief
as prayed can be granted in view of the effect of the decision of
Writ Petition No.10727 of 2023. Hence, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
21. The respondent No.2 / Collector, Dhule is at liberty to
proceed with the tender process, according to law.
22. Rule stands discharged.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ S. G. MEHARE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
rrd
