Disposed

Musa Kamalshah Murshad and Anr. v. Narsayya Narayan Adam (Master) and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Apr 2014PIL/73/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a direction by the Hon'ble Minister not to take action under Sections 83, 88, and 89 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act was without jurisdiction. The Minister exercised non-existing power, and the direction does not bind statutory authorities, who may proceed in accordance with the Act.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; held that statutory authorities can proceed against the society notwithstanding the Minister's direction.

Musa Kamalshah Murshad and Anr. Vs Narsayya Narayan… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

sjs

¶2

19-PIL-73.2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE – CIVIL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.73 OF 2011

¶4

Musa Kamalshah Murshad & Anr. .... Petitioners Vs. Narsayya Narayan Adam (Master) & Ors. .... Respondents

¶5

Mr. Ashok B. Tajane with Mr. R.M. Momin for the Petitioners. Mr. Neel Mohan Pungliya for Respondent No.1. Mr. Abhishek Pungliya for Respondent No.2. Ms M.P. Thakur, AGP, for Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 9. Mr. A.M. Kulkarni for Respondent No.5. Mr. Anand Kulkarni for Respondent No.8.

¶6

CORAM: A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶7

DATED: APRIL 25, 2014

¶8

P.C:

¶9

The order dated 2832014 passed by this Court reads

¶10

thus:

¶11

“Time is sought on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Our attention is invited to the report submitted by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, on inspection in accordance with Section 89(A)(1) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 ( for short “said Act”). We have perused the reply of Mr Vidhyadhar Bhimashankar Mane, Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, South Solapur affirmed on 1 March 2013. In paragraph 7 of the

Page 1 of 4

sjs

19-PIL-73.2011

reply, he has stated that explanation has been called for from the Society on the basis of the said report which is annexed on page 181 of the Petition. Our attention is invited to the decision allegedly arrived at in a meeting held on 13 January 2009. The meeting was held in the office of the Honourable Minister of State, Cooperation, Marketing and Textile, Government of Maharashtra. In the minutes of the meeting, it is recorded that what was found in the inquiry was not serious and, therefore, a direction has been issued that no action shall be taken against the concerned Society under Sections 83, 88 and 89 of the said Act.

¶16

2 We direct the State Government to file an affidavit setting out the source of power of the Honourable Minister to issue such a direction not to take an action under Sections 83, 88 and 89 of the said Act against the Cooperative Society. We also direct the State Government to place on record a reply, if any, filed to the report under Section 89(A)(1) by the Society. If reply has been filed, a copy of the reply shall be placed on record along with the affidavit. The affidavit will also disclose whether any action is proposed by the authorities under the said Act on the basis of the said report. Additional affidavit shall be filed on or before 22 April 2014. S.O. to 25 April 2014 under the caption of “fresh matters””

¶17

The learned AGP, on instructions, states that no further

¶18

steps could be taken under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, “the Act”) in view of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Minister on 1312009. As stated earlier, one of the documents relied upon by the petitioners is the report submitted by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, on inspection in

Page 2 of 4

sjs

19-PIL-73.2011

accordance with Section 89(A)(1) of the Act.

¶23

Notwithstanding the specific order dated 2832014, the State Government has not placed anything on record to show that the Hon'ble Minister could have exercised any statutory power for issuing a direction that no action under Sections 83, 88 and 89 of the Act should be initiated against the second respondent.

¶24

We find that the Hon'ble Minister has exercised non existing power by issuing the direction on 1312009 that no statutory action should be taken against the second respondent Society and particularly under Sections 83, 88 and 89 of the Act. The said direction issued by the Hon'ble Minister is without jurisdiction and the same will not bind any of the statutory authorities under the Act.

¶25

In view of this legal position, the authorities under the Act can proceed in accordance with law as against the second respondent. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent is that there is no justification for taking repeated action against the second respondent.

Page 3 of 4

19-PIL-73.2011

sjs

We are not going into the merits of the controversy at this stage. Suffice it to say that notwithstanding the direction dated 1312009, issued by the Hon'ble Minister, the authorities under the Act shall be entitled to proceed in accordance with the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 as against the second respondent.

¶30

Hence it will be open for the petitioners to move the concerned authorities for taking action in accordance with law. At this stage, no further direction is necessary in this petition. Subject to what is observed above, the petition is disposed of.

¶31

Page 4 of 4

Musa Kamalshah Murshad and Anr. v. Narsayya Narayan Adam (Master) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Musa Kamalshah Murshad and Anr. v. Narsayya Narayan Adam (Master) 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

Shri. Shantaram Yamaji Pujari Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Water Resources Dept and Ors.

Shri. Manohar Balisha Naik and Ors. Vs the Collector, Sangli and Ors.

Shri. Shantaram Yamaji Pujari Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Water Resources Dept and Ors.

Shri. Manohar Balisha Naik and Ors. Vs the Collector, Sangli and Ors.

Shri. Prem Arun Joseph and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Prakash R. Lolekar Vs State of Maharashtra

Bhausaheb Fakira Dhongade and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ravindra Rajaram Sawant and Ors. Vs District Collector Sindhudurg and Ors.

Madan Bandopant Chodankar Vs the Divisional Cast Scrutiny Committee No. 2 and Ors.

Shri. Shantaram Yamaji Pujari Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Water Resources Dept and Ors.

Shri. Manohar Balisha Naik and Ors. Vs the Collector, Sangli and Ors.

Shripati Govind Gurav and Ors. Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Shri. Pramod Anandrao Rananavare and Ors. Vs the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune and Ors.

Pravinkumar Chottalal Doshi Vs the Collector Satara and Ors.