ANANDRAO RAMCHANDRA JADHAV Vs. P SUBRAMANYAM COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a frivolous petition filed by some of the members of respondent no. 3 Sakhar Karkhana, and possibly at the behest of respondent no. 2, the Chairman of the Karkhana. The facts to be disclosed hereinafter would establish how the reauditing directed by the Commissioner for Co-operation has been successfully stalled for last over ten years.

(2.) THE respondent no. 3 is a Co-operative sugar factory registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and respondent no. 2 is its Chairman since inception, that is year 1972. One Chavan, Special Auditor, Class I, Co-operative Societies (Sugar Factories), Satara, audited accounts of the Karkhaaa for year 1977-78 and submitted a report on August 14, 1979 disclosing several irregularities in the working of the Karkhana. Another report dated November 3, 1980 for year 1978-79 was submitted by Mr. Chavan. The two reports for years 1979-80 and 1980-81 submitted by Mr. Chavan show loss of Rs. 28. 93 lakhs on account of bogus expenditure by board of directors. On December 27, 1982, the Karkhana addressed a letter to the Commissioner for Co-operation requesting for reanditing the accounts for years 1979-80 and 1980-81. In pursuance of the application, the Commissioner by order dated May 31, 1983 passed in exercise of powers under Sub-section (6) of Section 81 of the Act directed Mr. S. K. Hatolkar, Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Audit) (Cotton), Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation, to reaudit the accounts. The order of the Commissioner directs that the entire costs of reauditing shall the borne by the Karkhana and the effective reaudit work shall be commenced forthwith and should be completed within two months from the date of the starting of the work. The order passed by the Commissioner is under challenge at the behest of some of the members of the Karkhana in this petition.

(3.) MR. Naik, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that it was not necessary for the Commissioner to direct -ing of the accounts and the order of reaudit is done at the behest of the Chair. man of the Karkhana only to avoid the consequences flowing from the audit reports of Mr. Chavan. We are unable to find any merit in the submission. The Commissioner had jurisdiction to direct reauditing and we cannot appreciate the complaint that the reauditing would necessarily give a clean chit to the Karkhana. The assumption of the petitioners that the second auditor would not accept the report of the first auditor is without any basis. We have a feeling that the petitioners have been set up by respondent no. 2 or the Karkhana to file the present petition with a view to stall the second audit. The order was sought from the Commissioner for reauditing but the desire of the Karkhana seems to be to avoid any auditing and consequently taking of any action against the board of directors of the Karkhana. The petitioners have successfully stalled reauditing for last ten years. We refuse to exercise our writ jurisdiction to prevent the reauditing and the petition must fail.