Allowed

Kawashaw T Jagose and Anr. v. the Divisional Joint Registrar C S and 4 Others

Bombay HC26 Jul 2017WP/370/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition challenging disqualification orders against union representatives for failure to convene an Annual General Meeting within the statutory period. The High Court found that liability ceased upon the appointment of an Authorized Officer.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 5th October 2015 and 26th September 2016 are set aside. The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.

Kawashaw T Jagose and Anr. Vs the Divisional Joint… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

905-O.S.-W.P-370-2017

¶2

¶3

Shailaja

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 370 OF 2017

¶7

Mr. Kawashaw T. Jagose & Anr. ] Petitioners Vs. The Divisional Joint Registrar, C.S. ] Mumbai and others. ] Respondents

¶8

Ms. Rita Bhatia i/b RDB Legal, for petitioners. Mr. Kunal Bhanage, A.G.P, for respondents No.1, 2 and 5.

¶9

CORAM : R.G. KETKAR, J. DATE : 26^th JULY, 2017. P.C .

¶10

Heard Ms. Bhaita, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bhanage, learned A.G.P, for respondents No.1, 2 and 5 at length.

¶11

Ms. Bhatia states that she has served respondents No.3 and 4 and to that effect petitioners have filed affidavit of service. However, none appears on their behalf. Rule. Mr. Bhanage waives service on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 and 5. Having regard to the narrow controversy raised in this Petition as also at the request and by consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and Petition is taken up for final hearing.

¶12

By this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

¶13

2 905-O.S.-W.P-370-2017

¶14

Constitution of India, petitioners have challenged:

¶15

[1] Order dated 5^th October, 2015 passed by respondent No.2, Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, 'A' Ward, Mumbai.

¶16

[2] Order dated 26^th September, 2016 passed by respondent No.1, the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Mumbai Division, Mumbai.

¶17

By order dated 5^th October, 2015, respondent No.2, in exercise of powers conferred u/s 75 (5) and Section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 [for short 'Act'], disqualified petitioner No.1, Mr. Kawashaw T. Jagose, Ex-Chairman and petitioner No.2, Mr. Cavas Sam Contractor, Ex-Secretary from being elected, re-elected or nominated on the Managing Committee of the 3^rd respondent/Society. Aggrieved by these orders, petitioners preferred Revision Application u/s 154 of the Act before the first respondent. By order dated 26^th September, 2016, respondent No.1 dismissed the Revision Application and confirmed the order passed by the second respondent.

¶18

In support of this Petition, Ms. Bhatia invited my attention to the show cause notice dated 13^th March, 2015 issued by the second respondent on the ground that the petitioners did not convene Annual General Meeting of the year 2013-2014 before expiry of six months of the co-operative year. She submitted that petitioners gave reply to the effect that by order dated 11^th August,

¶19

3 905-O.S.-W.P-370-2017

¶20

2014, Administrator was appointed on the Society who took charge on 13^th August, 2014. In view of 97^th amendment to the Constitution of India, on 14^th February, 2013, the Annual General Body Meeting was required to be convened within six months and that period was up to 30^th September, 2014. In other words, she submitted that after the Administrator was appointed, petitioners were not responsible for convening Annual General Meeting prior to 30^th September, 2014. She submitted that in the meantime, elections were held and the new committee has taken over. She further submitted that petitioners are not interested in contesting elections of Managing Committee.

¶21

Mr. Bhanage supported the impugned orders and submitted that Authorities below have concurrently held that petitioners failed to convene Annual General Meeting of the year 2013-2014 prior to 30^th September, 2014. He, therefore, submitted that no case is made out for interfering with the impugned orders and in view of the subsequent development, Petition has become infructuous.

¶22

I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned Counsel appearing for the parties. I have also perused material on record. A perusal of show cause notice dated 13^th March, 2015 shows that respondent No.2 issued notice on the ground that petitioners did not convene Annual General Meeting of the year 2013-2014 within the stipulated time. The petitioners were supposed to convene meeting on or before 30^th September,

¶23

4 905-O.S.-W.P-370-2017

¶24

It has come on record and the said fact is also not disputed that by order dated 11^th August, 2014 passed u/s 77A of the Act, Authorized Officer was appointed in place of the Managing Committee. A perusal of the order dated 5^th October, 2015 passed by the second respondent shows that this fact was brought on record by the petitioners. Respondent No.2, however, has not considered whether petitioners could be held responsible post 11^th August, 2014 when Authorized Officer was appointed. A perusal of the order dated 26^th September, 2016 passed by the first respondent shows that respondent No.1 has not touched this aspect at all. In view thereof, impugned orders are liable to be set aside. More so, in the meantime, elections were held and new Committee has taken over. Ms. Bhatia states that petitioners are not interested in contesting the elections of Managing Committee. Statement made by Ms. Bhatia is recorded. Hence, the following order.

¶25

: O R D E R :

¶26

[1] Impugned orders are set aside.

¶27

[2] Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.

Kawashaw T Jagose and Anr. v. the Divisional Joint Registrar C S and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kawashaw T Jagose and Anr. v. the Divisional Joint Registrar C S and 4 Others

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

Ms Vijaya Bhiku Kadam Vs Mayani Bhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary and Ors.

Ms Vijaya Bhiku Kadam Vs Mayani Bhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary and Ors.

Mr. Pramod Kashinath Bhosale Vs the Secretary, Ahilya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors.

Namdev Tamanna Chavan Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, State Transport through

Namdev Tamanna Chavan Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, State Transport through

Aarts Module International Private Limited and Anr. Vs Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board and 2 Ors.