Allowed

Sagar Majur Sahakari Sanstha (Proposed)and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Mar 2009WP/301/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioners' challenge to a rejection order passed by the Deputy Registrar for society registration. The order set aside the impugned order, directed the Respondent to give reasons for its decision, and mandated a fresh decision within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18.6.2007 set aside; respondents directed to give reasons and decide afresh by 30.6.2009.

Sagar Majur Sahakari Sanstha (Proposed)and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.301 OF 2009

¶4

 Sagar Majur Sahakari Sanshta .
 (proposed) and others ....Petitioners
 V/s.

¶5

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents

¶6

 Mr.V.S. Kapse for the Petitioners.

¶7

 Mr.Milind More, A.G.P. for the State.

¶8

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
DATED : 2ND MARCH, 2009.
P.C. :

¶9

 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith and heard

¶10

 finally.

¶11

 2. The Petitioners have challenged the order

¶12

 dated 18.6.2007 passed by the Deputy Registrar,
 Co-operative Societies. The Petitioners also seek an
 order directing Respondent No.1 to accept their
 proposal for registration of their society.

¶13

 3. Prior to this Writ Petition, the Petitioners

¶14

 filed Writ Petition (Lodging) No.800 of 2005. The
 same was disposed of by an order of the Division Bench
 dated 27.4.2005 by which Respondent No.4 therein was
 directed to decide the Petitioners’ application within
 six weeks.

¶15

 : 2 :

¶16

 . By an order dated 31.5.2005, the Divisional

¶17

 Joint Registrar rejected the proposal. The
 order/communication merely stated that the rejection
 was on account of the Petitioners’ non-compliance.
 There are no reasons in support of the order. There
 is nothing in the order which specified/indicated the
 alleged non-compliance.

¶18

 4. Thereafter the Petitioners filed Contempt
 Petition No.5 of 2006. The same was disposed of by an
 order dated 10.3.2006. It appears that there was a
 fresh circular issued by the Government requiring all
 the proposals for registration to be forwarded to the
 Government. The order records the contention of the
 Respondents therein that the Petitioner had yet to
 comply with certain requirements. The learned Judge
 therefore directed Respondent No.2 therein to
 communicate to the Petitioners within one week the
 matters required to be complied with by the
 Petitioners. The Petitioners were granted a weeks
 time to comply with the requirements and the Deputy
 Registrar was directed to process the proposal within
 two weeks thereafter and to forward the same to the
 Government.

¶19

 5. It appears that the said order had not been

¶20

 : 3 :

¶21

 complied with. This led to the Petitioners filing
 Writ Petition No.3152 of 2006. The same was disposed
 of by an order dated 8.3.2007. The Division Bench
 disposed of the Writ Petition by directing Respondent
 No.1 to decide the proposal within six weeks.

¶22

 6. Thereafter the impugned order dated 18.6.2007
 was passed.

¶23

 7. Once again the order merely states that the
 Petitioners had not complied with the terms and
 conditions as required for registration of the
 society. The impugned order contains no reasons. It
 does not even specify the details of the alleged
 non-compliance.

¶24

 8. In the affidavit in reply, the Respondents
 have relied upon a letter dated 21.2.2009, in which it
 is alleged that the Petitioners had not furnished the
 information/particulars mentioned therein. As stated
 above, the impugned order contains no reasons
 whatsoever. It is not even possible to decide whether
 the Petitioners had not supplied the
 documents/information it was necessary for them to
 supply for the purpose of assisting the Respondents to
 consider the proposal. According to the Petitioners,
 they have supplied the information/particulars sought

¶25

 : 4 :

¶26

 in the said letter dated 21.2.2009.

¶27

 9. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is

¶28

 disposed of by the following order :-

¶29

 i). The impugned order dated 18.6.2007 is

¶30

 set-aside.

¶31

 ii). The Petitioners will be at liberty to
 furnish the documents/information sought for
 in the letter dated 21.2.2009 once again on

¶32

 or before 30.4.2009.

¶33

 iii). Respondent No.3 shall decide the

¶34

 proposal afresh on or before 30.6.2009. It

¶35

 is made clear that Respondent No.3 shall give

¶36

 reasons of the decision.

Sagar Majur Sahakari Sanstha (Proposed)and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Majur Sahakari Sanstha (Proposed)and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dandvati Investments and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs ----------------------------------------------

Gerad Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs ------------------------------------------

Dhana Singh Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs ------------------------------------------

Paints Employees Union Vs Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd. and Another

Haji M.C. Abdul Kadar Vs Asst. Municipal Commissioner and Ors. and George David Pereira and Ors.

Press Trust of India Employees Union and Anr. Vs M/S. Press Trust of India Ltd. and Ors.