Remanded

Ramesh Holaram Batra v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Nov 2011WP/2435/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petitioner challenged the Divisional Joint Registrar's dismissal of a revision under Section 100 of the M.C.S. Act regarding the sale of cooperative property. The court held that the impugned order lacked reasons and did not demonstrate application of mind regarding procedural compliance. The order was set aside, and the matter remanded to the Registrar for fresh disposal with opportunity

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 30/12/2009 set aside; case remanded to Divisional Joint Registrar, Nasik to decide revision afresh after hearing parties.

Ramesh Holaram Batra Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 WP 2435.2010 - [ J ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2435 OF 2010

¶4

Ramesh Holaram Batra Age : 51 Yrs., Occ. Nil., R/o : Room No. 245, Sindhi Colony, Bhusaval, Dist. : Jalgaon. .... PETITIONER

¶5

V E R S U S

¶6

The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Department of Co-operation, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶7

The Special Recovery & Sales Officer, Saraswati Co-Op. Credit Societies Ltd., Bhusaval, Dist. Jalgaon.

¶8

The District Dy. Registrar Co-operative Societies, Jalgaon.

¶9

The Divisional Joint Registrar Co-op. Credit Societies, Nasik Division, Nasik.

¶10

Saraswati Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Bhusawal, Dist. : Jalgaon.

¶11

Tryambak Purnanand Choudhari

¶12

2 WP 2435.2010 - [ J ]

¶13

Age : 48 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Sangvi ( Bk. ), Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon.

¶14

Kalpana Waman Patil Age : 48 Yrs., Occ. Service as Special Recovery Officer, C/o : respondent no. 5, R/o : Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. .... RESPONDENTS

¶15

Mr. R.R.Mantri, Advocate for the Petitioner

¶16

Mr. R.P.Phatake, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Resp. nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Pravin Waghmare, Advocate holding for Mr. H.D.Bedi, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 5 & 7. Mr. B.R. Kedar, Advocate for Resp. No. 6.

¶17

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

¶18

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 08/11/2011

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶20

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

¶21

the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶22

2 . The petitioner initially has filed the Writ Petition assailing the

¶23

Order dated 20/12/2009 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar,Nasik dismissing the Revision filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had

¶24

3 WP 2435.2010 - [ J ]

¶25

challenged the Order passed U/s 100 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act [ For short, ‘ M.C.S. Act ’ ].

¶26

During the pendency of the present Writ Petition, the sale deed came to be executed and the petitioner amended the petition challenging the said sale made in favour of the present respondent no. 6.

¶27

Mr. R.R.Mantri, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier two ( 2 ) Writ Petitions filed would not be an impediment for this Court to consider and entertain the present Writ Petition. In the earlier Writ Petition, the Order U/s 100 of the M.C.S. Act was not challenged. The Order U/s 100 of the M.C.S. Act was challenged before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nasik and in the present Writ Petition, the Judgment delivered by the said authority is challenged. According to the learned counsel, the provisions of Section 100 of the M.C.S. Act are flagrantly violated while issuing the Certificate transferring the property in favour of the Society. The order does not specify the ingredients required U/s 100 of the M.C.S. Act nor the procedure under Rule 85 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules

¶28

[ For short, said Rules ’ ] has been followed. The learned counsel contends that in fact the procedure has been followed more in breach.

¶29

4 WP 2435.2010 - [ J ]

¶30

The learned counsel further contends that the Divisional Joint

¶31

Registrar has not given any reasons while dismissing the said Revision and only the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 3180 of 2008 was referred. The said order was passed prior to the transfer of the property U/s 100 of the M.C.S. Act in favour of the Society.

¶32

The learned counsel for the Society submits that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that the W.P. No. 3180 of 2008 challenging the attachment and sale proclamation is dismissed, so also, the subsequent W.P. No. 487 of 2009 is withdrawn unconditionally. Mr. R.R.Mantri, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same was withdrawn pursuant to the settlement which has taken place on 14/02/2009 between the parties. The petition was subsequently withdrawn on 27/02/2009 by filing pursis.

¶33

The learned counsel for the Society further submits that the procedure U/s 100 of the M.C.S. Act read with Rule 85 of the said Rules have been followed scrupulously and no error can be found in the same. The Revision has been rightly dismissed. It is further contended that the petitioner can challenge the sale before the Divisional Joint Registrar in Revision U/s 154 of the M.C.S. Act.

¶34

5 WP 2435.2010 - [ J ]

¶35

Mr. Kedar, the learned counsel for respondent no. 6 supports the arguments of Mr. Bedi, the learned counsel for the Society and submits that the interest has been created in favour of the present respondent no. 6 and the sale deed is also executed, so also, the respondent no. 6 is put in possession of the property. Mr. R.R. Mantri, the learned counsel for the petitioner disputes this position.

¶36

With the assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the order impugned in the present Writ Petition.

¶37

From the perusal of the order impugned, it is manifest that the Divisional Joint Registrar has not given any reasons nor it transpires that the points raised have been considered by the authority. The reasons are the life line of judicial or quasi judicial order which is passed. The reasons depict the application of mind on the part of the authority passing the order. Whether Rule 85 of the said Rules was followed while passing the order dated 31/07/2008 by the Registrar, were required to be considered by the revisional authority, so also whether the ingredients of Section 100 of the M.C.S. Act were satisfied, was also required to be considered. The order does not show any discussion on the same.

¶38

In light of the above, I am inclined to relegate the parties to

¶39

the revisional authority by setting aside the impugned order dated 30/12/2009. The parties are relegated to the Divisional Joint Registrar, who shall decide the Revision afresh. The parties shall appear before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Nasik on 08/12/2011. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Nasik shall thereafter decide the said Revision afresh after hearing the parties and considering the arguments advanced by the respective parties. The petitioner is also at liberty to challenge the sale effected in favour of respondent no. 6. The respondent no. 6 is also entitled to appear in the said matter and the petitioner shall add respondent no. 6 as party in the Revision. The revisional authority shall decide the Revision expeditiously by giving opportunity to the parties. All points are kept open.

¶40

Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶41

In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, all applications stand

¶42

disposed of.

¶43

KNP/WP 2435.2010 - [ J ]

Ramesh Holaram Batra v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Holaram Batra 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

Balwant Kashinath Nimbalkar. Vs Tahsildar,Osmanabad. and Others.

M/S Ratanchand Kisanchand Sewalani Vs Food Corporation of India

Abdul Hakim Abdul Jalil Vs Zahrunisa Begum Bashir Ahmed and Anr.

Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeet Rahuri Vs Smt. Shahabai Ganpat Padekar and Anr.

Shaikh Salim Pasha Khaja Pasha Vs the Divisional Commissioner Aurangabd and Ors.

Kalyan Govindrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.