Disposed

The Bhandara Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.through Cheif Executive Officer, Shri H.C. Madan and Anothe v. the State of Maharshtra, through Tis Secretary, Dept. of Cooperation and Textile Mumbai and 3 Other

Bombay HC21 Apr 2015WP/558/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged Sections 30, 32, 33 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2013 as ultra vires. Court disposed of petition relying on stay granted by the Principal Seat regarding the 97th Constitutional Amendment, directing Registrar to reconsider within one month.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; direction to Divisional Joint Registrar to reconsider matter within one month.

The Bhandara Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.through Cheif Executive Officer, Shri H.C. Madan and Anothe Vs the State of Maharshtra, through Tis Secretary, Dept. of Cooperation and Textile Mumbai and 3 Other — Bombay HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 21.04.wp.558.14.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.558/2014 ( The Bhandara Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another vs. The State of Maharashtra and others )

¶4

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶5

Mr.M.V.Samarth, Adv.for petitioners

¶6

Mrs.Bharati Dangre, Government Pleader for respondents

¶7

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & A.M. BADAR, JJ. DATED : 21^st April, 2015.

¶8

By this petition, the petitioners challenge the provisions of Sections 30,32 and 33 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Amendment ) Act, 2013 as being ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India and against the judgment dated 22.4.2013 passed by the High Court of Gujarat.

¶9

It is informed to this Court by the learned Government Pleader that the 97^th amendment to the Constitution i.e. the amendment to the provisions of Article 243-ZJ was challenged before the Gujarat High Court and the said amendment has been struck down by the said High Court, being unconstitutional. It is stated that a similar challenge to the 97^th amendment to the Constitution has been raised at the Principal Seat and this Court has stayed the effect and operation of the first proviso to Clause(1) of Article 243-ZJ of the Constitution. It is stated that the amendment to the

¶10

2 21.04.wp.558.14.

¶11

provisions of Section 30,32 and 33 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act is based on the amendment to the provisions of Article 243-ZJ of the Constitution. It is stated that in view of the stay granted by the Division Bench at the Principal Seat, the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Nagpur, dated 24.1.2014, would not be acted upon and instead, the Divisional Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Nagpur will pass a fresh order within a reasonable time. It is further stated that if the challenge to the 97^th amendment i.e. the provisions of Article 243-ZJ succeeds, the challenge to the provisions of Section 30, 32 and 33 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2013 would also succeed. It is stated that since the Deputy Divisional Joint Registrar is ready to reconsider the matter in the light of the stay to the effect and operation of the first proviso to Clause (1) of Article 243-ZJ of the Constitution, the Writ Petition could be disposed of.

¶12

Since the respondents would not act upon the order of the Divisional Joint Registrar, Nagpur, dated 24.1.2014 and a fresh order would be issued by the Divisional Joint Registrar in view of the stay granted by the Division bench at the Principal Seat to the proviso to Clause (1) of Article 243-ZJ of the Constitution, nothing would survive in this petition. The challenge to the 97^th amendment to the constitution would be considered in several petitions pending at the Principal Seat.

¶13

By accepting the statements made by the learned Government Pleader, we dispose of the Writ Petition, with a direction to the Divisional Joint Registrar, Nagpur to

¶14

3 21.04.wp.558.14.

¶15

reconsider the issue within a period of one month. The points raised in the petition are kept open.

¶16

JUDGEJUDGE

¶17

sahare

The Bhandara Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.through Cheif Executive Officer, Shri H.C. Madan and Anothe v. the State of Maharshtra, through Tis Secretary, Dept. of Cooperation and Textile Mumbai and 3 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Bhandara Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.through Cheif Executive Officer, Shri H.C. Madan and Anothe v. the State of Maharshtra, through Tis Secretary, Dept. of Cooperation and Textile Mumbai and 3 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ku. Sarita D/O Ramdas Bhoyar Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Cooperation Department, Mumbai and 2 Others

Nilkanth S/O Tulsiramji Kulsange Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, School Education and Sports Department, Mumbai and 4

Sau. Nutan D/O Sayajirao Jawade (Nee Nutan W/O Naresh Ghodeswar), Nagpur Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Primary Education Department, Mumbai and 7 Others

Rakesh S/O Ramkishor Khurana Vs Coal India Limited, through Its Chairman, Kolkata and 2 Others

Ku. Praveena Rambhau Doifode Vs the Education Officer, (Pri.) Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and 4 Others

Komalsingh S/O Kondusingh Parihar Vs the Managing Director, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Mumbai and 1