Dismissed

Shri Bhairidev Bramhadev Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaik Sanstha Maryadit, Shipur Tarf Nesari v. Proposed Bhairidevi Mahila Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaik Sanstha Maryadit, Shipur Tarf Nesari and Ors.

Bombay HC1 Oct 2014WP/6674/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a daily dairy society's registration. The court upheld the revisional authority's order finding the society economically sound, noting its operational status already and lack of evidence showing perverse decision-making by lower authorities regarding member eligibility thresholds.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; there shall be no order as to costs.

Shri Bhairidev Bramhadev Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaik Sanstha… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

skc

¶2

7-WP-6674-2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 6674 OF 2014

¶6

Shri Bhairidev Bramhadev Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaik Sanstha Maryadit .. Petitioner vs. Proposed Bhairidevi Mahila Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaik Sanstha Maryadit & Ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr. S. S. Redekar for Petitioner. Mr. P. D. Dalvi for Respondent No. 1.

¶8

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE: 01 October 2014

¶9

P.C . :-

¶10

1] This petition takes exception to the order dated 5 June 2014, (impugned order) made by the State of Maharashtra, revisional authority under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (said Act).

¶11

2] By the impugned order, the State has set aside the order dated 6 August 2012 made by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies – respondent no. 4, which, in turn, had set aside the order dated 20 April 2012 made by the Divisional Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Dairy) – respondent no. 3 permitting registration of respondent no. 1 society, in terms of Section 4 of the said Act.

1/9

skc

7-WP-6674-2014

3] Section 4 of the said Act inter alia provides that a society, which has as its objects the promotion of the economic interests or general welfare of its members, or of the public, in accordance with co-operative principles, or a society established with the object of facilitating the operations of any such society, may be registered under the said Act. The proviso to the main Section provides that, no society shall be registered if it is likely to be economically unsound, or the registration of which may have an adverse effect on development of the co-operative movement, or the registration of which may be contrary to the policy directives which the State Government may, from time to time, issue.

¶16

4] There is no dispute that the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by the said Act has issued certain policy directives in the matter of registration of co-operative societies under Section 4 of the said Act. In this case, the policy directives are contained in G.R. dated 4 January 2000.

¶17

5] One of the requirements in the G.R. dated 4 January 2000 is that the proposal for registration of the society should be backed by at least 50 members, who independently hold cattle. Besides there is a policy directive that a society seeking registration should be in a

2/9

skc

7-WP-6674-2014

position to collect at least 250 litres of milk each day. Obviously, such directives are in the context of determining feasibility and economic soundness, which are valid parameters to be taken into account by the registering authority in the matters of registration of a society.

¶22

6] Respondent no. 3, the registering authority by order dated 20 April 2012 considered but over ruled the objections raised by the petitioner and respondent no. 6, both of which are dairy societies operating in the same village and directed the registration of the society. In the order dated 20 April 2012, respondent no. 3 has specifically noted that from out of the 75 proposed members, 50 are determined as prima facie eligible. Respondent no. 3 placed reliance upon the report dated 22 July 2011 made by the District Dairy Development Officer, who had in fact reported that from out of the 75 proposed members, prima facie 67 were eligible.

¶23

7] The petitioner carried the matter in appeal under Section 152 of the said Act to the respondent no. 4. By order dated 6 August 2012, respondent no. 4 set aside the order of registration dated 20 April 2012 inter alia on the grounds that there were already three societies operating in the same village and therefore the report dated 22 July 2011 which stated that the proposed society would be

3/9

skc

7-WP-6674-2014

in a position to collect about 300 litres of milk, could not be relied upon. Further, from out of the 176 cattle projected by the proposed members, only 122 could be physically verified. Finally, respondent no. 4 noted that from out of the 50 members held as eligible by the registering authority, at least 1 of them was dead and therefore requirement of minimum 50 members backing claim for registration cannot be said to have been complied with.

¶28

8] Respondent no. 1 preferred a revision petition under Section 154 of the said Act to respondent no. 5. By impugned order dated 5 June 2014, respondent no. 5 has allowed the revision petition, inter alia observing that the proposed society independently collects sufficient quantity of milk and supplies the same to Gokul Foundation, which fact is certified by the Federation. Further respondent no. 5 also relied upon the report dated 22 July 2011 and on the said basis concluded that registration of the society could not be said to be an economically unsound proposition.

¶29

9] Mr. Redekar, learned counsel counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no. 5, in making the impugned order has merely enumerated the various contentions raised by and on behalf of the petitioner. However, the impugned order does not indicate or reflect any consideration of such contentions. In particular, Mr.

4/9

skc

7-WP-6674-2014

Redekar pointed out that there is absolutely no consideration of the circumstance that the proposed society was sponsored by less than 50 eligible members and therefore in terms of the Government policy directives, such society could never have been ordered to be registered.

¶34

10] Mr. Dalvi, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that registering authority as well as the State Government have basically assessed the factual situation and on basis thereof returned a finding that the registration of the society will not be a economically unsound proposition. Besides, Mr. Dalvi pointed out that from out of the four societies operating in the village, two of the societies have already furnished their no objection to the registration of respondent no. 1 society. In pursuance of the impugned order, he submitted that the necessary certificate of registration has already been issued and respondent no. 1 society is operational. The subsequent events, of which respondent no. 5 has taken note, will bear out this position. For all these reasons, Mr. Dalvi submitted that there is no case made out warranting interference with the impugned order.

¶35

11] At the outset, if reference is made to the provisions contained in Section 4 of the said Act, it is clear that in matters of registration

5/9

skc

7-WP-6674-2014

of co-operative societies, registering authority is required to advert itself to the economic soundness of the proposal and whether the registration may have an adverse effect on the development of the co-operative movement. Besides, the registering authority is required to advert to the policy directives which the State Government may, from time to time, issue in this regard. In this regard, the report submitted by the District Dairy Development Officer, which basically adverts to factual aspects is important, though it may not be conclusive.

¶40

12] In this case, the District Dairy Development Officer in his report dated 22 July 2011 had indicated that at least prima facie 67 out of 75 members were eligible for enrollment. Further, the proposed society through its members was in a position to collect about 300 litres of milk per day. The registering authority, after adverting to such report and other parameters as prescribed under Section 4 of the said Act granted registration by order dated 20 April 2012.

¶41

13] The first appellate authority i.e. respondent no. 4 set aside

¶42

the order dated 20 April 2012 by observing that it did not agree with the findings recorded by the registering authority. However in doing so, the first appellate authority failed to give any clear or cogent

6/9

skc

7-WP-6674-2014

reasons for the disagreement. Merely stating that the report dated 22 July 2011 made by the District Dairy Development Officer, does not appear to be reliable, cannot be said to be a reason, much less any cogent reason. As to the demise of 1 of the 50 eligible members, it is to be noted that both, the report of the District Dairy Development Officer as well as the first appellate authority make reference to prima facie matters. The District Dairy Development Officer had opined that from out of the 75 members, 67 were eligible for enrollment. The first appellate authority, again on prima facie basis determined that about 50 members were eligible for enrollment. All this was obviously in the context of policy directives issued by the State Government. Therefore, if the totality of the circumstances are taken into consideration, it cannot be said that the registration of the society was in breach of the policy directives issued by the State Government. In any case, now that registration has already been granted and the society is fully operational the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not be exercised upon the plea that there was some doubt as to whether or not the proposal for registration of the society had been backed 49 members and not 50 members. The material on record is by no means a conclusive and if the registering authority and the revisional authority have recorded satisfaction that policy directives of the Government had been

7/9

skc

7-WP-6674-2014

complied with at the stage of registration, then there is no real reason to interfere with their decision in the absence of the petitioner's establishing any gross perversity or breach of statutory provisions.

¶51

14] Mr. Redekar may be right in his submission that the revisional authority has not dealt with each of the petitioner's submissions. However, the first appellate authority in making the order dated 6 August 2012, did not fare any better. In such circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in remanding the matter to respondent no. 5, now that respondent no. 1 society has already been registered and is operational. The revisional authority has rightly taken into consideration the circumstance that respondent no.1 society collects the sufficient quantity of milk and supplies the same to Gokul Federation, which fact has been duly certified by the Federation itself. This circumstance establishes the economic soundness of the proposal for registration of respondent no. 1 society. Besides, from out of the four societies operating in the area, two societies have furnished their no objection for the registration of respondent no. 1 society which exclusively comprises female members. This at least prima facie establishes that the registration of respondent no. 1 society may not have any adverse effect on the development of the co-operative movement. If

8/9

skc

7-WP-6674-2014

therefore, upon consideration of totality of such circumstances, the registering authority and thereafter the State Government have permitted a registration of respondent no. 1 society, then such decision cannot be interfered either on grounds of any illegality or irrationality or procedural impropriety.

¶56

15] Based upon the aforesaid, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is therefore dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶58

Chandka

¶59

9/9

Shri Bhairidev Bramhadev Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaik Sanstha Maryadit, Shipur Tarf Nesari v. Proposed Bhairidevi Mahila Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaik Sanstha Maryadit, Shipur Tarf Nesari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Bhairidev Bramhadev Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaik Sanstha Maryadit, Shipur Tarf Nesari v. Proposed Bhairidevi Mahila Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaik Sanstha Maryadit, Shipur Tarf Nesari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivneri Shikshan Sanstha Tere Vayangani and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Education and Sports and Ors.

Shri Rasaidevi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Education and Sports and Ors.

Shivneri Shikshan Sanstha Tere Vayangani and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Education and Sports and Ors.

Shri Bhairidev Bramhadev Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaik Sanstha Maryadit, Shipur Tarf Nesari Vs Proposed Bhairidevi Mahila Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaik Sanstha Maryadit, Shipur Tarf Nesari and Ors.

Mohd. Rafique Mohd. Siddique Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Shri Ashok Krishna Chavan, and 2 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.