SURENDRA DIGAMBER JUVEKAR Vs. DEVTIRTH CHS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in all the petitions. All these petitions can be disposed of by a common order since the parties are same. Only respondent No.3 whose nomination has been accepted by the authorities is different.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 in these petitions was not eligible to file his nomination, in view of bye-law No. 118(iii), and in view of the orders passed by the Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Section 79 and 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). He invited my attention to the said orders which are annexed at Exhibit B (Colly). It was submitted that the Scrutiny Officer had rightly rejected the nomination of respondent No.3 in each of these petitions, on the said ground. However, the Appellate Authority had accepted the nomination. It was submitted that it was not necessary for the Dy. Registrar to pass a separate order of disqualification or non-compliance in respect of the individual member of the Managing Committee, either under Section 79(1), 79(2) and 79(3) of the said Act and it was sufficient if the order was passed under any of the sub-sections of Section 79 of the Act, it would automatically amount to a disqualification, as envisaged under Bye-Law No. 118(iii). He submitted that in the instant case, the Registrar had given given 15 days time to the Managing Committee members to carry out repairs of the leakage in the flat of one Surendra Digambar Juvekar, the petitioner herein. It was submitted that this was, however, not done in spite of repeated notices being given.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in each of these petitions submitted that until a specific order was passed under section 79(3) of the Act, it can be said that such a member had incurred disqualification. He submitted that no order was passed by the Registrar, under the said sub-clause (3). It is then submitted that these writ petitions were not maintainable. It was submitted that under section 152A of the said Act, appeal was provided only against the order of rejection of the nomination papers and no appeal could lie against the acceptance of the nomination papers. He submitted that on the same analogy, against the order of acceptance of nomination papers by the Appellate Authority, writ petitions were not maintainable. In support of the said submission, he relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Maniklal Peerchand Lunawat vs. Rupee Cooperative Bank Ltd. [CDJ 1988 BHC 547].