NARAYAN KISANRAO SAMUNDRE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these Letters Patent Appeals arise from a common decision in Writ Petition Nos. 5456 and 5481 of 1995 and the issues raised fall in a narrow compass.

(2.) IN L. P. A. No. 10/1995, the appellants were the members of the managing Committee of Osmanabad Zilha Dudh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit and were served with the show cause notice dt. 24. 7. 1995, informing them that they had suffered disqualification under Section 73 FF (1) of the maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 ('the Act' for short) for not having refunded the advance taken by them within a period of 30 days and they were asked to show cause as to why the order of disqualification could not be passed against them under Section 78 of the Act. They submitted explanation that the advance amount was repaid after a period of 30 days and before any notice directing them to refund the advance amount was issued to any of them and in any case the amount having been remitted before issuance of the show cause notice, there was no occasion to proceed against them. This explanation was not accepted by the Divisional Deputy Registrar (Dairy), Aurangabad, who passed an order of disqualification under Section 78 (1a) of the Act on 11. 9. 1995. An appeal came to be filed against the said order and the disqualification was stayed. However, by order dt. 3. 11. 1995, the appeal came to be dismissed and thus the order of disqualification passed on 11. 9. 1995 came to be confirmed. The challenge to the order of disqualification as well as the view taken by the lower appellate authority was turned down by this court video its judgment dt. 20th of Nov. 1995,

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the appellants had taken advance and it was not remitted within 30 days. They have raised only the following two questions, namely : (1) There was no notice issued against them, calling upon them to refund the advance amount and a period of 30 days had not expired from the date of such a notice, and (2) in any case the amount was deposited before the show cause notice was issued and, therefore, the provisions of 73 FF (1) (i) (c) of the Act were not attracted and even, if it be otherwise, there was no consultation, leave alone effective consultation, with the federal society, as is mandated under Section 78 (1) of the act, before the order of disqualification was passed.