Partly allowed

Santosh Kakasaheb Jagtap v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Nov 2011WP/4599/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay held that an order deleting member names from a society's voters' list without prior notice to the affected member was unsustainable as it violated natural justice. The writ was dismissed as to jurisdiction and merits but the order was set against the specific petitioner, and he was directed to appear before the Assistant Registrar.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order deleting the petitioner's name is set aside as against the petitioner; petitioner and respondents to appear before the Assistant Registrar on 28/11/2011 for fresh consideration.

Santosh Kakasaheb Jagtap Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 WP 4599.2011 - [ J ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4599 OF 2011

¶4

Santosh Kakasaheb Jagtap Age : 24 Yrs., Occ. Agriculture, R/o : Village Govardhanpur,

¶5

Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. .... PETITIONER

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

Through Principal Secretary, Co-operation & Textile Department,

¶9

Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

¶10

The Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶11

Govardhanpur Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. Govardhanpur, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶12

Rajdhar S/o Dnyandev Jagtap Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Govardhanpur, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. 5. Suresh S/o Sitaram Autade Age : 43 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Govardhanpur, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶13

Sachin S/o Vasantrao Jagtap

¶14

2 WP 4599.2011 - [ J ]

¶15

Age : 35 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Govardhanpur, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. .... RESPONDENTS

¶16

Mr. P.R.Patil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.B.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. J.R.Shah, Advocate for Resp No.3. Mr. V.D.Hon, Advocate for Resp No.4 to 6.

¶17

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 14/11/2011.

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶19

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

¶20

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

¶21

The petitioner assails the Order passed by the Assistant Registrar dated 10/06/2011 directing respondent no. 3 – Society to delete the names of 47 members from the final voters’ list.

¶22

Mr. P.R.Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends

¶23

that the said order is passed without jurisdiction. The Assistant Registrar did not have jurisdiction to pass such order. The learned counsel contends that even otherwise as the order is passed without hearing the petitioner, the said order is illegal and bad in law. Other contentions are also raised

¶24

3 WP 4599.2011 - [ J ]

¶25

by the learned counsel.

¶26

Mr. V.D.Hon, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 6 submits that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable. The petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy U/s 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, so also the allegations are not in pursuance to the said voters’ list as the Administrator is appointed on respondent-Society and he is preparing list and if the petitioner is aggrieved, he may raise objection therein. On merits also, the learned counsel has also advanced his arguments.

¶27

The learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 3 also supports the order passed by respondent no. 2.

¶28

With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have perused the proceedings. It nowhere transpires that before passing order, the Assistant Registrar has even issued notice to the petitioner. The cardinal and fundamental principles of natural justice have not been complied. On this count itself, the order as against the petitioner can not be sustained.

¶29

In view of the above, when the order has been passed without hearing the petitioner, I am inclined to relegate the parties to respondent

¶30

4 WP 4599.2011 - [ J ]

¶31

no. 2, who shall decide about the inclusion/non inclusion of the name of the petitioner. Respondent no. 2 would be at liberty to consider all the objections raised by the respective parties.

¶32

In light of the above, I pass the following order.

¶33

The impugned order to the extent of petitioner only is set aside and the petitioner and the respondents shall appear before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Shrirampur on 28/11/2011. The Assistant Registrar shall decide about the inclusion/non inclusion of the name of the petitioner. All the points raised by the petitioner including jurisdiction and all the points raised by the respondents including the lapse of said voters’ list in view of the appointment of the Administrator are kept open.

¶34

Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶35

[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ]

¶36

KNP/WP 4599.2011 - [ J ]

Santosh Kakasaheb Jagtap v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kakasaheb Jagtap v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaikh Rafiq Shaikh Nazir and Anr. Vs Saurabhi Milind Joshi and Anr.

Shaikh Rafiq Shaikh Nazir and Anr. Vs Saurabhi Milind Joshi and Anr.

Manjulabai Aukdeo Auti Vs Dattatraya Mahadu Ware

Ankush Rambhau Sonkamble Vs Bansi Sakharam Alat

Kadubai Bhagwat Kavde Vs Gangadhar Ramji Janrao and Ors.

Kanchankumar Vilas Kasture, Gpa of Shashikalabai Vilasrao Kasture Vs Sarojini Rajendra More and Anr.