Allowed

Mr. Ashok Bandu Gore v. Shri. Nivruti Shripati Patil and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Jan 2015WP/7217/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order of supersession over a society's Board of Directors for lack of application of mind and failure to consider the petitioner's contentions. The revision was remanded to the Minister for fresh consideration within six months, with the order of supersession stayed pending the revision proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 23 July 2014 set aside; Revision remanded for fresh consideration within six months; stay on supersession; superseded members barred from major decisions/financial stakes.

Mr. Ashok Bandu Gore Vs Shri. Nivruti… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

DSS

¶2

24-wp-7217-14 CAw 2875-14

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7217 OF 2014

¶5

Ashok B. Gore .. Petitioner vs. Nivruti S. Patil & ors. .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2875 OF 2014 Datattraya D. Mohite and ors. ..Applicants In the matter between Ashok B. Gore .. Petitioner vs. Nivruti S. Patil & ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. Akshay Shinde for the Petitioner. Mr. R.S. Ghadge i/b A.S. Desai for Respondent Nos.1 to 12. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos.10 and 13. Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad for the Applicants in CAW 2875/14.

¶7

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 14 JANUARY, 2015

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

1] Rule. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

¶10

2] This petition takes exception to the order dated 23 July 2014 made by the Minister (Cooperation)-respondent No.10 allowing revision application preferred by respondent Nos.1 to 7 in the matter of their supersession as Board of Directors of respondent No.12 society.

¶11

3] Perusal of the impugned judgment and order would indicate that the contentions raised by the petitioner, on whose complaint the

¶12

1/4

¶13

DSS

¶14

24-wp-7217-14 CAw 2875-14

¶15

order of supersession came to be made, have not at all been considered. The submissions made by and on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 7, as reflected at page 52 of the paper book (internal page 2 of the impugned order) have been verbatim reproduced as conclusions at page 53 and 54 (internal pages 3 and 4 of the impugned order). This is indicative of non-application of mind. There is no discussion whatsoever in the impugned order as to why the contentions of the petitioner have not been accepted and as to why the submissions made by and on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 7 have been accepted, not just in their totality, but also in the verbatim words and language employed by the said respondents. In such circumstances, there is no option but to set aside the impugned judgment and order.

¶16

4] Mr. Dattatray Mohite and others have filed an intervention application in the present petition. Their case is that they had also lodged complaints against the members of the Managing Committee on basis of which the order of supersession came to be made. It is their case that they ought to have been joined as parties in the revision petition by respondent Nos.1 to 7. There can be no hard and fast rule in this regard. Every complainant, as a matter of right cannot insist upon their joinder as party in proceedings, which are basically directed to question the action of statutory authorities superseding the Board of Directors and appointing an Administrator in their place. In the present case, the petitioner, who was also one of the complainant was admittedly made a party in the revision proceedings. However, rather than dilate on this issue, interest of justice would be served if the applicants in intervention application, i.e., Civil Application No. 2875 of 2014 are permitted to intervene in

¶17

2/4

¶18

DSS

¶19

24-wp-7217-14 CAw 2875-14

¶20

the revision proceedings before the Minister (Cooperation) in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. It is made clear, however, that seven intervener applicants would be represented by only one advocate of their choice and there shall be no insistence that separate advocates by permitted to appear for each of them.

¶21

5] Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23 July 2014 is set aside.

¶22

6] Revision Petition is remanded to the Minister (Cooperation) for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Revision Application shall be disposed of expeditiously and in any case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶23

7] Notwithstanding, setting aside of impugned order dated 23 July 2014, it is made clear that pending the Revision Application before the Minister (Cooperation), there shall be a stay on the order of supersession and appointment of an Administrator. However, respondent Nos.1 to 7, in their capacity as members of the Board of Directors shall not take any major policy decision or decisions involving large financial stakes.

¶24

8] Parties agree to appear before the Secretary, Minister (Cooperation) on 21 January 2015, in order to obtain suitable date for prosecution of the Revision Application.

¶25

9] Rules is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.

¶26

3/4

¶27

DSS

¶28

24-wp-7217-14 CAw 2875-14

¶29

10] In view of aforesaid order, nothing survives in Civil Application and same is disposed of accordingly.

¶30

11] All parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶31

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶32

dinesh

¶33

4/4

Mr. Ashok Bandu Gore v. Shri. Nivruti Shripati Patil and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Ashok Bandu Gore v. Shri. Nivruti Shripati Patil 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. Mahadu Sadh Raykar (Since Decd) through Lr and Ors. Vs Smt. Gopikabai Sadu Raykar and Ors.

Mr. Sudhir Shrirang Vegurlekar Vs Shri Sunil Krishna Gurav and Ors.

Digambar Ramchandra Damri (Since Decd) and Ors. Vs Mr. Tukaram Yashwant Damri (Since Decd) and Ors.

Dinesh Chandra Maingi Vs the State of Govt. of Maharashtra, the Honble Minister of Co-Operation and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Mr. Baburao Deoram Gaikwad

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Mr. Pandurang Deoram Gaikwad and Ors.