LAXMANANRAO ANADRAO RAJESHIRKE Vs. B A DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging legality of order dated march 9, 1983 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Milk)Pune. By the impugned order passed in exercise of powers vested under provisions of Section 79a of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the petitioners, who are Members of the Shind Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sanstha ltd , Shind, Taluka Bhor of. Pune District, were removed from the Managing committee of the Society and were also disqualified to become members of the Managing Committee for a period of six years from the date of the order, the impugned order came to be passed after show cause notice dated december 15, 1982 was served upon the petitioners. The show cause notice, inter alia, recites that inspite of warnings given on December 6, 1982 by the milk Procurement Officer, Government Milk Scheme, Pune, the Society did not carry out the work of inspection of milk supplied by individuals. The show cause notiec called upon the petitioners to explain why milk supplied by every individual has not been inspected and rates paid according to facts contained therein.

(2.) INSPITE of the service of show cause notice, the petitioners did not care to appear before the Assistant Registrar or to file any written reply. Due to failure of the petitioners, the Assistant Registrar passed the impugned order. Shri Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners had filed written reply before the Assistant Registrar. We cannot accept the submission, because the petitioners could not produce the acknowledgment of the fact of riling of such a written repiy. It is not possible to turn down the specific finding recorded by the Assistant Registrar that the petitioners did not file any written or oral explanantion on bare averments made in the petition Shri Naik was unable to point out any acknowledgment, but relied upon the copy of the alleged reply annexed to the petition. The perusal of the reply also indicates that there was no explanation whatsoever to explain the change contained in the notice.

(3.) SHRI Naik submitted that the show cause notice did not specify the section which enables the Assistant Registrar to debar the petitioners from becoming members of the Managing Committee for duration of six years. It is not necesssary to specifically mention the section when the show cause notice specifically sets out that the petitioners shall show cause why they should not be disqualified for the period of six years. Shrinaik did not dispute that the Act confers power upon the Assistant Registrar to disquality the petitioners for duration of six years. In tnese carcumseances we are unable to find any merit in tne submissions urged on behalf of tne petitioners, and the petition must tail.