Disposed

Pandurang Daji Dhundare v. Shri.Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Sept 2014WP/7981/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the enrollment of ineligible members in a cooperative sugar factory karkhana, the High Court of Bombay did not express an opinion on the merits but directed the Registrar to decide the grievance based on material produced by the petitioner or as determined under the law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Registrar to take appropriate decision on the petitioner's grievance based on material produced or as determined by the Registrar under the law.

Pandurang Daji Dhundare Vs Shri.Bhogawati Sahakari… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

7981.14wp.sxw

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7981 OF 2014

¶5

Pandurang Daji Dhundare. ... Petitioner. V/s. Shri Bhogwati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd and others. ... Respondents.

¶6

P.D.Dalvi for the petitioner.

¶7

H.S.Venegavkar for respondent No.1.

¶8

Vishal Thadani, AGP for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶9

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 12th September 2014.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 is enrolling members and more than 3,000 members have been enrolled irrespective of ascertaining eligibility and against the provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 ("said Act" for short) and the rules framed thereunder and the byelaws of respondent No.1. It is alleged that the persons below age of 18 years, persons who are not possessing agricultural lands and persons who are not having requisite qualification as per the byelaws have been enrolled by the managing committee of respondent No.1 as members. It is submitted that under

¶13

2/3

¶14

7981.14wp.sxw

¶15

section 11 of the said Act the Registrar has power to look into the grievances of the petitioner. An application dated 30th July 2012 (Exh.B) is said to have been addressed to the Joint Director of Sugar, Kolhapur Division, Kolhapur. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the this Court in the case of Karbhari Maruti Agawan v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1994 Mh.L.J. 1527 wherein objection was raised to the enrollment of thousands of members who were not qualified for being enrolled as members.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 Karkhana submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to raise grievances in respect of enrollment of members of respondent No.1. Under the provisions of section 11 of the said Act, the Registrar has no power to look into the allegations made by the petitioner. According to learned counsel for respondent No.1, in case the petitioner is aggrieved, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to resort appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the said Act.

¶17

Learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that in case the petitioner had approached the Registrar with certain grievances, the Registrar would take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

¶18

Without expressing any opinion on merits of the allegations made by the petitioner, we direct the Registrar to take appropriate decision based on material produced by the petitioner or as determined by

¶19

3/3 7981.14wp.sxw

¶20

the Registrar in exercise of his powers. Registrar shall take decision in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶21

With the aforesaid direction and observation, petition is disposed of.

¶22

(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶23

Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S..

Pandurang Daji Dhundare v. Shri.Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandurang Daji Dhundare v. Shri.Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. 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

Union of India and Ors. Vs Subhash S. Birhade and Anr.

Devendra Baburao Vanmali Vs Nasik Municipal Cor. and Anr.

Anil Sidram Gaikwad Vs Nasik Municipal Cor. and Anr.

Shri. Ankush Bhujangrao Hotkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Additional Chief Secretary, Home Dept and Anr.

Shri. Dinakar Ganpat Ahire Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Finance Dept and Ors.

Shri. Vijay Laxmanrao Tribhuwan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.