Disposed

Sukdev Lahanu Bhawale and Ors. v. Uttam Ganpat Thorat and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Apr 2023IA/4166/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a series of interim applications, the High Court quashed an order changing the classification of a cooperative society. The Supreme Court, hearing special leave petitions, observed that the individuals deleted from the parties list were directly affected by the interim order without hearing and permitted them to approach the High Court to challenge this grievance urgently due to impending elect

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to move the High Court with appropriate applications to challenge deletion of names from the party list. Special Leave Petitions disposed.

Sukdev Lahanu Bhawale and Ors. Vs Uttam Ganpat… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Digitally signed by MEERA MEERA MAHESH MAHESH JADHAV JADHAV Date:2023.04.28 14:51:31 +0530

¶2

902&903-IA-4163-23& ors.doc

¶3

1 / 6

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4163 OF 2023 IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1506 OF 2023

¶7

Ganesh Madhukar Kahandal & Ors….Applicants

¶8

In the matter of

¶9

Uttam Ganpat Thorat & Ors.…Petitioners
Vs.

¶10

State of Maharashtra & Ors.….Respondents

¶11

WITH

¶12

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4166 OF 2023 IN

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO.1350 OF 2023

¶14

Sukdev Lahanu Bhawale & Ors….Applicants
 In the matter of
Uttam Ganpat Thorat & Ors.…Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.….Respondents

¶15

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4169 OF 2023

¶16

IN

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO.1347 OF 2023

¶18

Khanderao Ramchandra Kasabe & Ors….Applicants
In the matter of
Uttam Ganpat Thorat & Ors.…Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.….Respondents

¶19

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4168 OF 2023 IN

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO.1356 OF 2023

¶21

Shivaji Anandrao Pingle & Ors….Applicants

¶22

Meera Jadhav

¶23

902&903-IA-4163-23& ors.doc

¶24

2 / 6

¶25

In the matter of
Uttam Ganpat Thorat & Ors.…Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.….Respondents

¶26

WITH

¶27

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4167 OF 2023 IN

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO.1357 OF 2023

¶29

Hiraman Gopala Dheringe & Ors….Applicants
In the matter of
Uttam Ganpat Thorat & Ors.…Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.….Respondents

¶30

WITH

¶31

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4170 OF 2023 IN

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO.1348 OF 2023

¶33

Gokul Anandrao Pingle & Ors….Applicants
In the matter of
Uttam Ganpat Thorat & Ors.…Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.….Respondents

¶34

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4165 OF 2023 IN

¶35

WRIT PETITION NO.1349 OF 2023

¶36

Dilip Shankar Thete & Ors….Applicants
In the matter of
Uttam Ganpat Thorat & Ors.…Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.….Respondents

¶37

Meera Jadhav

¶38

902&903-IA-4163-23& ors.doc

¶39

3 / 6

¶40

----

¶41

Mr. Pramod Joshi for Applicants in all Interim Applications.

¶42

Mr. Surel Shah a/w Mr. Patwardhan i/b Mr. Sachin Gite for original
Petitioners.

¶43

Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl. G.P. a/w Mr. K. S. Thorat, AGP for Respondent-State.

¶44

 ----

¶45

 CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &

¶46

 RAJESH S. PATIL JJ
 DATED : 27th APRIL 2023

¶47

P.C. :

¶48

1 On 17^th April 2023, the following order came to be passed:

¶49

“1At the outset, Mr. Shah seeks leave of the Court to delete
respondent nos.6 to 18.

¶50

2 Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out during the course of
today. Re-verification dispensed with.

¶51

3 Petitioners are impugning an order dated 23rd June 2022 passed by
the Co-operative Minister in revision applications mentioned
hereinbelow :

¶52

(1) WRIT PETITION NO.1347 OF 2023 – REVISION APPLICATION NO.608 OF 2021

¶53

(2) WRIT PETITION NO.1348 OF 2023 – REVISION APPLICATION
NO.611 OF 2021

¶54

(3) WRIT PETITION NO.1349 OF 2023 – REVISION APPLICATION
NO.606 OF 2021

¶55

(4) WRIT PETITION NO.1350 OF 2023 – REVISION APPLICATION
NO.610 OF 2021

¶56

(5) WRIT PETITION NO.1356 OF 2023 – REVISION APPLICATION
NO.605 OF 2021

¶57

(6) WRIT PETITION NO.1357 OF 2023 – REVISION APPLICATION
NO.607 OF 2021

¶58

(7) WRIT PETITION NO.1506 OF 2023 – REVISION APPLICATION
NO.609 OF 2021

¶59

(8) WRIT PETITION NO.3857 OF 2023 – REVISION APPLICATION
NO.608 OF 2021

¶60

4 By the impugned order, the Co-operative Minister has changed the
classification of respondent no.5 society. Respondent no.5 was
registered on 11th June 2021 as service society and sub-classified as
service resource society as per Section 12(1) read with Rule 10(1) of
the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. According to
petitioners, if the classification or sub-classification has to be changed,
there are certain mandatory requirements that has to be followed.
Those mandatory requirements are as per the Government Resolution
dated 23rd September 2013 read with Corrigendum dated 14th

¶61

Meera Jadhav

¶62

902&903-IA-4163-23& ors.doc

¶63

4 / 6

¶64

February 2017. By way of an amendment, which was permitted by
this Court on 6th April 2023, petitioners have set out in the petition
the criteria prescribed in the Government Resolution and the
Corrigendum. Ofcourse before this amendment was carried out, the
State had filed an affidavit justifying the decision taken by the
Minister. After the amendment, when petitioners set out the rigours of
the mandate of the Government Resolution that has to be mandatorily
followed, the State has filed another affidavit of one Fayaj Mulani,
Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik affirmed on 6th April
2023, in which paragraphs 4 and 5 read as under :

¶65

4. With reference to L1 of the petition, I have
to place on record that the Government of
Maharashtra had issued a Government
Resolution dated 23.9.2013 and Corrigendum
dated 14.2.2017 for registration of an
Agricultural Credit Society and prescribed
certain mandatory requirement. Hereto
annexed and marked as Exhibit 1 Colly. are
the copies of Government Resolution dated
23.9.2013 and Corrigendum dated 14.2.2017.
5. I say that stipulation mentioned in
Government Resolution dated 23.9.2013 and
Corrigendum dated 14.2.2017 are mandatory
in nature. However, the Respondent No.5
Society does not comply with the said
stipulations. It is also true that the Society has
not got any approval from the committee
established as per Clause 5 of the Govt.
Resolution dated 23.9.2013.

¶66

5 In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 23rd June 2022
passed by the Co-operative Minister in revision applications
mentioned in paragraph 3 above are quashed and set aside. Any
consequential actions taken in view of the impugned order dated 23rd
June 2022 also will have to be struck down and are hereby struck
down.

¶67

6 All petitions disposed accordingly.”

¶68

2 Respondent nos.6 to 18, whose names were deleted moved the Apex

¶69

Court and the Apex Court was pleased to pass the following order:

¶70

“UPON being mentioned the Court made the following

¶71

O R D E R

¶72

1 On mentioning, the matter is taken on Board.

¶73

2 This batch of Special Leave Petitions has been mentioned for urgent orders.

¶74

3 Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that:

¶75

Meera Jadhav

¶76

902&903-IA-4163-23& ors.doc

¶77

5 / 6

¶78

(i)Prayer clause (b) of the writ petition which was filed before the
High Court (Annexure P-7) specifically sought the deletion of the
names of respondent Nos 6 to 18 (the petitioners in these
proceedings) from the final voters list published on 7 December 2022;

¶79

(ii)The High Court by its impugned order dated 17 April 2023
allowed the deletion of the petitioners who were arrayed as
respondent Nos 6 to 18 from the parties to the writ petition;

¶80

(iii) The consequence of the order of the High Court which sets aside
the order dated 23 June 2022 passed by the Minister for Co-operation
is that the names of all the petitioners would stand deleted from the
final voters list; and

¶81

(iv) As a consequence, though the petitioners are directly affected by
the impugned order of the High Court, they were not furnished with
an opportunity of being heard and, as a matter of fact, were deleted
from the array of parties to the writ petition.

¶82

4 At this stage, we are not inquiring into the tenability of the above
grievance of the petitioners. However, having regard to the nature of
the grievance, which is that an order has been passed by the High
Court which has the effect of directly impinging on their rights
without furnishing to the petitioners an opportunity of being heard,
we are of the view that it would be appropriate to allow the
petitioners to move the High Court with this grievance.

¶83

5 The petitioners are accordingly permitted to move the High Court
on 24 April 2023 with appropriate applications.

¶84

6 We request the High Court to take up the applications so as to
determine whether there is any merit in the grievance which has been
urged by the petitioners. Since the elections are due to take place on
28 April 2023, the High Court may conveniently take up the
applications that may be moved before it expeditiously having regard
to the above circumstances.

¶85

7 We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of
the claim or the grievance of the petitioners.

¶86

8 The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly disposed of.

¶87

9 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”

¶88

3 Pursuant to the liberty granted by the Apex Court these interim

¶89

applications have been filed.

¶90

4At the outset, Mr. Shah stated that due to oversight, he did not ask for

¶91

deletion of prayer clause (b) in the petition. Mr. Shah states that court may

¶92

Meera Jadhav

¶93

902&903-IA-4163-23& ors.doc

¶94

6 / 6

¶95

treat prayer clause (b) as not pressed for. Mr. Shah states that respondent
no.5 society has passed unanimous resolution on 24th January 2023
authorising society to defend this petition and in that resolution respondent
nos.6 to 18, whose names are deleted, have participated. Mr. Shah further
states names of these respondents have already been deleted from the
voters list.

¶96

5 In view of the statement made by Mr. Shah, Mr. Joshi seeks leave to withdraw the interim applications so that applicants can challenge the deletion of their names.

¶97

6 Interim applications dismissed as withdrawn.

¶98

(RAJESH S PATIL, J.)

¶99

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶100

Meera Jadhav

Sukdev Lahanu Bhawale and Ors. v. Uttam Ganpat Thorat and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukdev Lahanu Bhawale and Ors. v. Uttam Ganpat Thorat and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tri-Parulex Fire Protection System Vs Ctr Manufacturing Industries Private Limited

Iolite Softwares Private Limited Vs R. K. Dewan and Company

The State of Maharashtra (through the Special Land Acquisition Officer,) Vs Smt. Leelabai Ambaji Patil and Other

Dilip Shankar Thete and Ors. Vs Uttam Ganpat Thorat and Ors.

Ganesh Madhukar Kahandal and Ors. Vs Uttam Ganpat Thorat and Ors.

Khanderao Ramchandra Kasabe and Ors. Vs Uttam Ganpat Thorat and Ors.