Dismissed

Yunus Mahmmod Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Jul 2016PIL/121/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL sought appointment of an administrator for a cooperative society under Section 78 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The High Court disposed of the petition relying on an affidavit stating the society had no government shareholding or financial assistance, thereby invoking the statutory proviso.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of accepting affidavit that society has no government shareholding or assistance, falling under proviso to Section 78.

Yunus Mahmmod Maniyar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

pil-121.12.odt

¶2

pmw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.121 OF 2012

¶4

Yunus Mahmood Maniyar … Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶5

Mr. J.N. Shiradhankar for the Petitioner.

¶6

Mr. P.G. Lad, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 16 – State. Mr. Girish Godbole a/w Mr. K.R. Parikh i/by K.R. Parikh & Co. for the Respondent Nos.2 to 15.

¶7

Ms. Trupti Puranik for the Respondent – BMC.

¶8

Mr. Pratapsinh Rananavare for the Intervenor.

¶9

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 29^th JULY, 2016

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1 The only substantive prayer in this Petition is prayer clause (b) which reads thus :-

¶13

“(b) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ, order and/or

¶14

direction to the Respondent No.16 to initiate proceedings under Section 78 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 by dismissing the present Board of Directors of the Sahakar Bazar and appointing an administrator/committee for the management of

¶15

Respondent No.2 in accordance with law.”

¶16

1 of 3

¶17

pil-121.12.odt

¶18

2 The other prayers are for interim relief.

¶19

3 There is an affidavit in reply filed by Shri Mahendra Mhaske, District Registrar of the Co-operative Societies (III), Mumbai. Shri Mhaske has relied upon the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Section 78 confers power on the Registrar to appoint an Administrator by superseding the Managing Committee of a Society. The proviso lays down that nothing in Sub-Section (1) of Section 78 will apply to a society where there is no Government shareholding or loan or financial assistance in terms of any cash or kind or any guarantee by the Government. There is a statement on oath in the said affidavit that as of today, in relation to the society in question, there is no Government shareholding or loan or financial assistance or guarantee by the Government. In short, the stand taken is that in view of the applicability of the proviso, action of appointing Administrator cannot be taken. The Petitioner or intervenor are unable to produce any material on record as of today to show that proviso is not applicable.

¶20

4 Hence, by accepting the statements made in the affidavit of Shri Mhaske, we propose to dispose of the Petition. If any statement in

¶21

2 of 3

¶22

pil-121.12.odt

¶23

the affidavit is found to be false, we grant liberty to the Petitioner to apply for revival of the Petition.

¶24

5 In the event, in future, the proviso ceases to apply to the society in question, the Petitioner can always make a representation to the Appropriate Authority of the State Government.

¶25

6 Subject to what is observed above, by accepting the statements made by Shri Mahendra Mhaske in his affidavit dated 7^th May, 2016, we dispose of the Petition.

¶26

7 We, however, make it clear that we have made no adjudication on any factual aspects which are reflected from the pleadings filed on record. Pending Chamber Summons and Notices of Motions do not survive and the same are disposed of.

¶27

3 of 3

Yunus Mahmmod Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yunus Mahmmod Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra 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

Nilesh S/O Govindrao Nagrale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Irrigation Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Rewaram Narayan Ramteke Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Department of Urban Development, and 2 Others

Joshi Shivshankar Jatashankar Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Imran Suleman Qureshi Vs Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board and 7 Ors.

Tushar Guru Salien Vs State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Suraj Datta Kedari Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary Secretary and Ors.

Help Association(Ngo) and Anr. Vs Government of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Sk. Bashir Sk. Khudbuddin and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Joshi Shivshankar Jatashankar Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Smt. Madhura Balkrishna Mirashi and 2 Ors. Vs Surendra Chhaganlal Jhaveri and 86 Ors.

Smt. Madhura Balkrishna Mirashi and Ors. Vs Surendra Chhaganlal Jhaveri and Ors.

Nachiket Jalindar Ramane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chandra S. Kumaran Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mehul Choksi Vs the State of Maharashtra