Allowed

Proposed Sahyadrai Rahera Tanwadi Macchyavaisai Sah Sanstha Maryadit Rahera Dist Jalna v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Mar 2012WP/666/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a government letter mandating that cooperative registration proposals be considered on a 'first come first serve' basis. The court held such policy lacked jurisdiction and violated public interest, directing authorities to evaluate proposals on competitive merits.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the communication dated 24.5.2011 and 7.6.2011; direct respondents to consider petitioner's proposal on competitive merits within six months.

Proposed Sahyadrai Rahera Tanwadi Macchyavaisai Sah… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp-666.12

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 666 OF 2012

¶6

Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions
and the Registrar's
orders.

¶7

 Court's or Judge's orders

¶8

Coram: B. R. Gavai, and

¶9

 Sunil P. Deshmukh, JJ.

¶10

Date: 28.3.2012

¶11

Shri Mahesh R. Sonawane, Adv. for Petitioner.
Shri K.M.Suryawanshi, AGP, for Respondents.

¶12

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

¶13

2. The petitioner has approached this court

¶14

for a direction to Respondent No. 6 to send

¶15

petitioner's proposal for grant of no
objection certificate for registration as
fisheries society for the area under Tanwadi
Sathwan tank.

¶16

3. In the affidavit in reply filed on

¶17

behalf on behalf of Respondent No.6, it is

¶18

submitted that the petitioner's proposal for

¶19

2 wp-666.12

¶20

grant of no objection and registration could
not be considered as its proposal was

¶21

received on 3.8.2011 and as prior to
petitioner's proposal, proposal from one
Rahera Tanwadi Dharangrastha Macchimar
Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Rahera was received on
28.7.2010 by Respondent No.6's office. It
is further stated in the affidavit that by
communication dated 7.6.2011, Respondent No.
4 informed to the office of Respondent No. 6
that the proposal which comes first in point
of time be sent to Respondent No.5 for grant
of No Objection Certificate and proposals
which are received subsequently would not be
considered.

¶22

4.Vide order dated 7.3.2012, we had
directed the learned A.G.P. to file reply of
the authorities concerned, justifying such
policy.

¶23

5.An affidavit has been filed on behalf of
Respondent No.3, stating therein that while

¶24

3 wp-666.12

¶25

registeringthecooperativefisheries

¶26

societies, there are many disputes in respect
of grant of No Objection Certificates and

¶27

registration. Respondent No.3, therefore, in
his affidavit, states that he thought it fit
and proper to entertain the proposal which
comes first in point of time, rather than
preferring the proposals which are received
later in point of time. It is categorically
admitted in the affidavit that apart from the
communication dated 24.5.21011, there is no
Govt. Resolution or circular or guidelines to
consider only the proposal received first in
point of time.

¶28

6.Firstly, such a policy cannot be
promulgated by a ordinary letter of some
Officerworkinginthecooperation

¶29

department. Policy of the State should be
reflected either through Govt. Resolution, or
Circular issued by the State Govt. Apart
from that, such a policy itself would be
against the public interest. If the proposal

¶30

4 wp-666.12

¶31

is to be considered only on the basis of
first come first serve, it will give complete
go-bye to the merits. This is because, a
highly meritorious society may be deprived of
being considered only because its proposal is
received by the authorities concerned few
minutes later than the society which is less
meritorious and such a society will get
registration only on the count that its'
proposal was received earlier.

¶32

7.We are, therefore, of the considered
view that the so called letter issued by
Respondent No. 3 is firstly without
jurisdiction and secondly, the same is
contrary to the public interest.

¶33

8.We, therefore, set aside the aforesaid

¶34

communication dated 24.5.2011 and also
subsequent communication dated 7.6.2011.
Respondents are directed to consider
petitioner's proposal for grant of No
Objection Certificate and registration as

¶35

5 wp-666.12

¶36

fisheries society on its competitive merits
along with other societies which have applied
for said area and take decision in accordance
with law. The same shall be done within six
months from today.

¶37

9.Petition stands allowed. Rule made

¶38

absolute in aforesaid terms.

¶39

(Sunil P. Deshmukh, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.)

¶40

pnd/wp-666.12

Proposed Sahyadrai Rahera Tanwadi Macchyavaisai Sah Sanstha Maryadit Rahera Dist Jalna v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Proposed Sahyadrai Rahera Tanwadi Macchyavaisai Sah Sanstha Maryadit Rahera Dist Jalna 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

Vasantika Markasrao Ghule Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Ankush Nivrutti Kachave Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dadasaheb Bhagirth Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr Ganesh Gangadhar Kalyankar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sahebrao Keshavrao Ambhure, Died Thr. L.Rs. Pralhad and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

United Spirits Ltd. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.