RAVINDRA BHAURAO PATIL SHISHODE Vs. STATE OF MAHRASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners challenge order dated 30thJuly, 2009, rendered by the Hon'ble Minister (Cooperation), in revision application No. 254/2009. By that order, the Hon'ble State Minister dismissed the revision application and confirmed order dated 8thMay, 2009, passed by learned Divisional Joint Registrar (Cooperative Societies), Aurangabad, in appeal No. 8/2009. With the result, the disqualification of the respondents No. 6 and 7 as per order of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Paithan has been revoked as well as direction to appoint administrator to run affairs of Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Limited, Dhakephal (for short, "VKSS Ltd") also was set aside.

(2.) The petitioners are members of the VKSS Ltd. The byes-laws of the VKSS Ltd provide that there shall be seven (7) directors of the Managing Committee of the VKSS Ltd. It is a Specified Cooperative Society. There is no dispute about the fact that due to legal provisions regarding reservation available to members of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, etc., more six (6) have been provided for election as directors of the Managing Committee. Thus, the Managing Committee comprises of thirteen (13) directors including seven (7) directors to be elected from general borrowers' constituency and six (6) directors from the reserved categories. The petitioners submitted an application dated 14thNovember, 2008 to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Paithan, seeking declaration for disqualification of six (6) directors of the Managing Committee of the VKSS Ltd, including the respondents No. 6 and 7. The disqualification against the respondents No. 6 and 7 was sought on the ground that they were defaulters because they had not re-deposited scythes to Shri Sant Eknath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited and was found in arrears of Rs. 300/- which he deposited that the said Sugar Factory on 28thOctober, 2008. Another ground put forth by the petitioners was that the respondent No. 6 was not inhabitant of village Dhakephal, but was residing at village Amrapur-Waghundi. He was, therefore ineligible to contest the election of the Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Limited (for short, "VKSS Ltd"). So far as the respondent No. 7 is concerned, it was alleged that he was also a defaulter because amount of Rs. 20,260/- was due against him which was payable to Agasti Sarva Seva Sangh, which is affiliated to Shri Agasti Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited. It was further alleged that he was not residing at village Dhakephal and was, therefore, ineligible to contest the election. The petitioners also alleged that six (6) directors were liable to be disqualified under section 73FF of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, "the MCS Act") and were liable to be removed. They alleged that because coram was not available for conducting meetings of the VKSS Ltd, in accordance with the bye-law No 45 of the VKSS Ltd, the work of the VKSS Ltd will be stalled and, therefore, the Managing Committee was required to be dissolved by appointing any administrator. The learned Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Paithan, allowed the application and held that seven (7) directors were liable to be removed. The respondents No. 6 and 7 as well as the other five (5) directors were held disqualified and, therefore, the coram was not available to conduct business of the VKSS Ltd and as such, administrator was appointed to run affairs of the VKSS Ltd. The petitioners and other four (4) directors challenged the said order of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, by filing appeal No. 8/2009. The appeal was partly allowed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad. It was held that the respondents No. 6 and 7 did not incur any disqualification and, therefore, their removal as directors of the Managing Committee was set aside. It was further held that appointment of the administrator was not necessary and as such, such direction was set aside. The petitioners challenged the said order by filing revision application No. 255/2009 before the Hon'ble Minister of State for Cooperation. The revision application filed by them came to be dismissed.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.G.P.