Disposed

Indapur Taluka Sahakari Dekhrekh Sangh Maryadit, through Secretary v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Co-Operation and Textile and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Sept 2014WP/8261/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions challenged interim winding up orders against Taluka level supervisory co-operative societies. The court held that while the issue is pending before statutory authorities under Section 102, parties must be heard on facts and law. Authorities were directed to issue reasoned orders without being influenced by State instructions, and adverse orders were suspended for four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directions to appropriate authorities to hear petitioners and pass reasoned orders; suspension of adverse orders for four weeks.

Indapur Taluka Sahakari Dekhrekh Sangh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

12.wp.9359.12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 9359 OF 2012

¶5

Purandar Taluka Sahakari

¶6

Dekhrekh Sangh Maryadit ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

¶7

WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 6243 OF 2013

¶9

Velha Taluka Sahakari Dekhrekh Sangh Maryadit ..Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

¶12

WITH

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO. 8261 OF 2012

¶14

Indapur Taluka Sahakari Dekhrekh Sangh Maryadit ..Petitioner

¶15

Vs.

¶16

The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

¶17

Mr. G. S. Godbole i/b Mr. S. S. Kanetkar,for the Petitioners. Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni, Special Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Amit Borkar, for the Respondent State.

¶18

Aswale 1/6

¶19

12.wp.9359.12

¶20

CORAM :- NARESH H. PATIL & B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE :- SEPTEMBER 9, 2014.

¶21

P. C.:

¶22

The Petitioners are taluka level supervision Co-operative Societies (Dekhrekh Societies). It is submitted that these societies are functioning since the year 1975 onwards under different nomenclature. They were registered in the year 1990-1991 onwards. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the interim order of liquidation passed by the appropriate authorities under Section 102 of the Co-operative Act. The contention of the Petitioner is that by way of issuance of Maharashtra Ordinance No.7 of 2007, the provisions of Section 69A of the Co-operative Act were deleted. The second continuance Ordinance was issued on 28^th December 2007 by the State Government. The continuance ordinance was replaced by the Amendment Act of 2008. The Act was called as Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2008. It was brought into force on 29^th October 2007. Section 13 of the Amendment Act reintroduced Section 69A with addition of clause (7). Section 72A was introduced by way of amendment.

¶23

2 It is an admitted position that by way of Maharashtra Act No.16 of 2013, the provision of Section 69A was deleted in its entirety from the

Aswale 2/6

12.wp.9359.12

Principal Act.

3 In substance, the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the impugned orders are contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The interim orders of winding up passed by the Respondent Authorities are illegal, unreasonable and unwarranted. The learned counsel has referred to various provisions of the Co-operative Act. It was submitted by the learned counsel that the supervisory societies still exists in spite of deletion of Section 69A from the Principal Act. It is an admitted position that the proceedings before the Respondent Authorities in respect of winding up of these Petitioner Societies are still pending, as interim orders are subject matter of challenge in these Petitions. The counsel submits that purposefully, in Pune district only, on the instructions of higher authorities, the Respondent Authorities issued notice of winding up to the societies.

¶28

4 The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that these Petitions raise purely an academic question which this Court need not go through. In view of the amendment of Maharashtra Act of 16 of 2013, the provisions of Section 69A of the Aswale 3/6

¶29

12.wp.9359.12

¶30

Principal Act were deleted. The source of existence of these societies relates back to the provisions of Section 69A. The said provision itself is deleted. Therefore, they do not exist at all. These societies are cadre societies and the State decided to do away with these cadres, therefore, the Petitioners have no locus to seek directions to the Respondent State to allow them to continue any further. The learned Senior Counsel had referred to the provisions of the Ordinance Amendment Act, the Maharashtra Act of 16 of 2013

¶31

5 We have perused the record placed before us, the affidavit-in-reply filed and the submissions advanced. We have also perused the provisions of Section 69A and the corresponding amendment brought to the Principal Act that is the Co-operative Act.

¶32

6 The interim orders of winding up are challenged in these Writ Petitions. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the State and its authorities disclosed their stand in the Affidavit-in-reply that in view of Section 69A, there is no other option except to wind up these societies and no fruitful purpose will be achieved in prosecuting the Appeals before the statutory authorities by the Petitioners.

¶33

Aswale 4/6

¶34

12.wp.9359.12

¶35

7 The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, makes a statement that the Petitioners have effective alternate statutory remedies under law. They have challenged the interim orders before this Court. On instructions, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the concerned appropriate authorities entertaining these proceedings would hear the Petitioners on issues, factual and legal and pass a reasoned order, irrespective of whatever stand the State had adopted before this Court.

¶36

8 In the facts of the case, we find that as the issue is pending before the appropriate authorities, we direct these authorities to hear these Petitioners on the facts, legal submissions and pass appropriate reasoned orders. The authorities shall not be influenced by any instructions whatsoever nature issued in this behalf in respect of winding up proceedings initiated by the authorities against the Petitioners. All these issues are kept open.

¶37

9 We direct the respective Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies seized with these proceedings to hear the Petitioners, the contesting parties and pass appropriate reasoned orders, as expeditiously as possible.

¶38

Aswale 5/6

¶39

12.wp.9359.12

¶40

10 In case the orders passed by the Respondent Authorities are adverse to the interest of the Petitioners, the effect and operation of such orders shall stand suspended for a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the Petitioners so as to facilitate the Petitioners to resort to the appropriate remedies of appeal or revision, as permissible in law.

¶41

11 It is clarified that these orders are restricted to the Petitioners before this Court. We have not expressed any conclusive view or opinion in respect of the submissions advanced before this Court. With these directions the Petitions are disposed of.

¶42

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

¶43

Aswale 6/6

Indapur Taluka Sahakari Dekhrekh Sangh Maryadit, through Secretary v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Co-Operation and Textile and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indapur Taluka Sahakari Dekhrekh Sangh Maryadit, through Secretary v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Co-Operation and Textile 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. Dilip George Masoji and Ors. Vs Sundarsingh Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Sau. Savita Sudhakar Jadhav and Ors. Vs Sundarsingh Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors.

Shivaji Damu Kale Vs the Chairman, Chaundeshwari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, and Ors.

Shri. Dattatray Ganpati Shinde Vs the Superintending Engineer, Environmental Circle and Ors.

Purandar Taluka Sahakari Dekhrekh Sangh Maryadit, through Secretary and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Co-Operation and Textile and Ors.

Shivaji Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Dahegaon, through Chairman, Shri. Manik Baban Bidgar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.