YUVRAJ DATTATRAYA PATIL Vs. REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR SUGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. RULE made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 18th January, 2011 passed by respondent No. 3 - Minister whereby 2nd respondent's appeal is allowed by setting aside the order dated 10th November, 2010 passed by 1st respondent Regional Joint Director(Sugar) Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur and the matter is remanded for hearing afresh.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :- THE petitioners are the members of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2- Sadashivrao Mandlik Kagal Taluka Sahakari Karkhana Ltd [for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as "Karkhana"] is a specified co-operative society engaged in the business of crushing sugarcane and manufacturing of sugar. Respondent No. 1 is an authority who exercises control and supervision on Karkhana. Respondent No. 3 is the appellate authority under section 152 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 [for short "the said Act"]. On 7-7-2010, the petitioners made an application to Karkhana making a request for issuance of members' list of Karkhana. By this application, the petitioners also showed willingness to pay the copying charges. THE petitioners by separate application dated 26-7-2010 also applied for the certified copy of Agenda and Minutes of Meetings of Board of Directors of Karkhana held during the period 1st April, 2008 to 30th June, 2010. By its order dated 9th August, 2010, respondent No. 1 informed the Managing Director of Karkhana about the petitioners' grievance that they are not getting the list of members of Karkhana and it was therefore directed that the petitioners be given list of members of the Karkhana after payment of copying fees. On 1-9-2010 the petitioners made representation to the Chairman/Managing Director of Karkhana and pointed out the order of respondent No. 1 dated 9-8-2010. It was informed that even though the period of 1 month has elapsed, and the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the copying charges, still the list of members is not given. Fresh request was made to Karkhana to supply a list of its members. THEreafter again on 13-9-2010 and 9-10-2010, the reminders were sent by the petitioners to Karkhana. THE 1st respondent on 24-9-2010 wrote a letter to the Managing Director of Karkhana and gave second direction to him to supply a list of members to the petitioners. On 25-9-2010, 2nd respondent wrote a letter to petitioner No. 5 and informed that the petitioners' request to supply members' list will be considered after payment of copying charges at the rate of 50 paise per 200 words. THE petitioners thereafter tried to deposit an amount of Rs. 20,000/- with respondent No. 2 towards the copying charges. However, same was not accepted. THErefore, petitioners deposited the said amount in the bank account of Karkhana. THE Karkhana acknowledged the said deposit under the letter dated 22-10-2010 written to petitioner No. 4. By the separate letter dated 25-9-2010, the Managing Director of Karkhana informed petitioner No. 5 that Minutes of Meetings of Board of Directors of Karkhana held during the period 1st April, 2008 to 30th June, 2010 do not contain any reference about the petitioners and therefore the petitioners' prayer for certified copy of those minutes could not be accepted. THE 1st respondent thereafter on 10-11-2010 at the instance of petitioners passed an order under the provisions of section 79 of the said Act thereby directing Karkhana to supply the list of its members and copies of Agenda and Minutes of Meetings of Board of Directors of Karkhana held during the period 1st April, 2008 to 30th June, 2010. This order Was challenged by the Karkhana by filing an appeal before respondent No. 3. As stated above, respondent No. 3 has allowed the said appeal and remanded the matter to respondent No. 1. This order is impugned in the present petition. 2A. Mr. Jahagirdar learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the impugned order was passed on two grounds, viz., the 1st respondent before passing an order under section 79 did not grant an opportunity of hearing to the Karkhana and secondly that the payment of Rs. 20,000/- alleged to be made, is required to be verified. He submitted that these grounds are not at all sustainable, firstly, because the hearing is not contemplated under section 79 of the said Act, and, secondly the payment of Rs. 20,000/- by the petitioners is accepted by Karkhana. Mr. Jahagirdar relied upon the provisions of section 32 of the said Act and submitted that it is the right of members to get copies of documents mentioned in clause (1) of said section within one month from the date of payment of fees, however, Karkhana with the ulterior and oblique motive refused to give copies of the said documents. He prayed that the impugned order be set aside and petition be allowed.

(3.) FOR the first time on 25-9-2010, Karkhana informed petitioner No. 5 that the certified copy of Agenda and Minutes of Meetings of Board of Directors of Karkhana held during the period 1st April, 2008 to 30th June, 2010 cannot be given for want of reference to the petitioners in the said proceedings. As stated above, respondent No. 1 passed an order under section 79 of the said Act, directing Karkhana to supply copies of the relevant documents to the petitioners and this order was set aside by respondent No. 3 on two grounds, viz., the principles of natural justice are not followed and for verification of deposit of Rs. 20,000/- alleged to be made by the petitioners.