ANANT RAMKRUSHNA DESHMUKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Mahalle, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Jaiswal, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 4, Shri Samarth, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, Shri Pande, learned counsel for respondent No.6 and Shri Meghe, learned counsel for respondent No. 7.

(2.) The challenge in this writ petition was to non consideration of request of the petitioner to place his society (Respondent No. 6) in category of Apex Societies for the purposes of election of Respondent No. 5 ' Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank. In view of various orders passed by this Court, the said request was considered by Respondent No. 4 ' Director and on 27.01.2010, he categorized Respondent No. 6 as Apex Society for Ginning and Pressing Cooperative Societies. This classification has also been challenged later on. The petitioner contends that Respondent No. 6 is also to be recognized as Apex Society of Marketing Cooperative Societies just like Respondent No. 7 ' Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation. In Byelaws governing Respondent No. 5 ' Bank, the constitution of Board of Directions is made in Byelaw No. 51 and as per its clause B, one Director representing Apex Marketing Cooperative Society registered in Maharashtra State finds birth on that Board. The petitioner who is representative of Respondent No. 6 has contended that Respondent No. 6 is entitled to be placed along with Respondent No. 7 in said Constituency and hence there has to be election for the post of Director from that constituency. This Court issued notice in the matter on 04.01.2010 and shortly thereafter on 07.01.2010 permitted the petitioner to file his nomination from category mentioned in above Byelaw No. 51B subject to further orders of this Court in the matter. On 19.01.2010, by detailed order, Respondent No. 4 was directed to take decision upon the representation submitted by the petitioner for declaring it as Apex Society for Cooperative Marketing Societies. In view of the orders dated 27.01.2010 passed by Respondent No. 4, later on the petition is allowed to be amended to raise challenge to that order, to join Respondent No. 7 ' State Marketing Cooperative Federation as party respondent. Considering the nature of controversy, matter has been heard finally at the stage of admission.

(3.) Shri Mahalle, learned counsel has contended that there was only one society dealing with Marketing of Agricultural Produce viz. Respondent No. 7 till 1984. The said respondent is established in 1957, & after introduction of Cotton Monopoly Scheme and Respondent No. 6 came to be formed for sale, purchase, processing etc. of cotton and hence after 1984 Respondent No. 7 is not Apex Society for Cooperative Societies dealing with Marketing, processing etc. of cotton. He has in this background invited attention to certificate of registration issued to Respondent No. 6 to show its classification as Agricultural Society with subclassification as Marketing society under Section 12(1) of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act read with Rule 10(1) of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act or Rules). The objects of Respondent No. 6 from its Byelaws are also pointed out to show that it is not dealing only with Ginning and Pressing or processing of Cotton but also is marketing it. Attention is invited to statement made on affidavit by Respondent No. 7 that there was no representation received from Respondent No. 6 till 05.01.2010 and same is sought to be contradicted with oral statement that such representation or proposal was received on 02.01.2010. The recommendation of Respondent No. 4 dated 25.11.2009 is also pressed into service for this purpose. The learned counsel states that the petitioner apprehended design to keep him out of said election and hence it made representation in September 2009 itself. He further states that there was no occasion to raise this grievance earlier as Respondent No. 5 is being administered by democratically elected body for the first time now and after 1984 till election of such democratically body , it was under control of Respondent No. 7 through nominated Directors. He has also compared the Byelaws of Respondent No. 6 and Respondent No. 7 to urge that Respondent No. 6 ' Society stands on equal footing and is liable to be recognized at par with Respondent No. 7. The impugned decision dated 27.01.2010 notifying Respondent No. 6 as Apex Society for Ginning and Pressing Societies is stated to be malafide and bad in law. The learned counsel contends that provisions of Rule 10 and Entry No. 1 & 6 in Table incorporated in that rule have not been deliberately properly interpreted.