KISAN NARAYAN SHRIRAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith. The Petitioners are members of a co- operative society which is an affiliate of respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 5 has members spread over various districts which were divided into two divisions which are set out below. This was the position before the appeal was disposed of by the Hon'ble Minister for State (Textiles) Mantralaya on 29-1-1999. The position of members was as under :in terms of the bye-laws, 16 members had to be elected to respondent No. 4, one from each of the districts. Earlier a writ petition was filed before this court being Writ Petition No. 1064 of 1989 which came to be disposed of on 12- 3-1989. The limited issue in that petition was whether the District Industrial Society should be given representation on board of directors. That came to be disposed of by order dated 12-3-1989.

(2.) Respondent No. 3, as Registrar under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act on 11-5-1990 issued notice under Rule 13 (1) of the Rules framed under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies act proposing amendments to bye-law No. 28 being bye-law No. 28 (1) to 28 (8) in exercise of his powers under Section 14 of the Act. The society did not oppose amendment of bye-law no. 28 (5) and bye-law No. 28 (6). They however, opposed the other amendments. By the proposed bye-laws, 16 seats were to be divided amongst various groups of societies as contained in the said proposed bye-laws. We are really concerned with the amendment to bye-law 28 (1) and bye-law No. 28 (2). By bye- law No. 28 (1) it was proposed that three seats were allotted to Pune division and by bye-law no. 28 (2) two seats were to be allotted to mumbai and Nashik Divisions. As the respondent No. 3 still insisted on the amendment of the bye-laws, society preferred an appeal under Section 152 of the Co-operative societies Act and stay was granted on 17-12- 1990. It is the case of the Petitioners that on 13-4-1998 Chairman of Respondent No. 4 appeared before the Hon'ble Minister hearing the appeal and made a statement to accept all the amendments except amendment to bye-law no. 28 (1) (4). Based on that a formal amendment to the bye-law was carried out on 1-6-1998. In passing we may mention that the persons aggrieved by the rejcation of the amendment to bye-law 28 (1) (4) had filed petition before this court being Writ Petition No. 2041 of 1999. This court by separate judgment and order passed on 23-2-2005 allowed the said petition thereby said bye-law is also now part of the bye-laws. It is the case of the Petitioner that thereafter respondent Nos. 7 and 8 preferred another appeal to the Minister purportedly under Section 152 of the Act. By this appeal they proposed further amendment to bye-laws 28 (1) (a) to 28 (1) and 28 (2). Bye-laws as proposed were that in Pune Division, Solapur should be allotted two seats and one seat be allotted to district Satara, Sangali Kolhapur and pune. Similarly they proposed the amendment to bye-law 28 (2) by which the Districts of mumbai, Ratnagiri, Thane, Sindhudurga, Raigad and Ahmednagar were to be given one seat and the districts of Dhule, Nashik and Jalgaon were to be given one seat. It is the contention of the petitioners that without authority from the society, the chairman appeared before the hon'ble Minister and agreed to the amendment. Pursuant to appeal being allowed, Respondent no. 3 by order of 6-2-1999 directed respondent no. 4 to carry out that amendment as set out earlier. It is this order which is the subject matter of the present petition.

(3.) On behalf of the Respondent nos. 6 and 7, the learned counsel contends that the amendment is just and equitable and in furtherance of the co-operative principles. It is submitted that considering the number of voters that Solapur has in Pune Division and ahmednagar has in Mumbai and Nashik division, representation would go mainly only to societies from Solapur and Ahmednagar. It is in that context that the amendment was proposed and accepted. It is further submitted that it was open in appeal to the Minister to allow such amendment and once such amendment was allowed, society was bound to carry out the amendment. All that respondent No. 3 has done by order of 6-2-1999 is to act in furtherance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Petitioner points out that the order passed in appeal and the consequential order of 6-2- 1999 are totally without jurisdiction. It is pointed out that amendment to the bye-laws was proposed by Respondent No. 1 in exercise of his powers under Section 14 of the M. C. S. Act. As the society was aggrieved they preferred an appeal. In that appeal, before the Minister based on the statement made objection to bye- laws other than 28 (1) (4) was not pressed. Consequently formal amendment to the bye- laws was carried out on 1-6-1998. On the amendment being carried out there was total compliance with the direction issued under section 14 and consequently it was not open to Respondent nos. 7 and 8 to prefer an appeal against the non-existing direction. It is therefore, submitted that the action is totally without jurisdiction and consequently impugned orders are liable to be set aside.