KARBHARI GOVINDRAO PATIL Vs. B.D. PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was elected to the Managing Committee of respondent No. 3 Society as representative of petitioner No 2 Society. On 14th June, 1974, respondent No. 1, the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nasik, called upon the Committee Members of respondent No. 3 Society to show cause why the said Committee should not be removed in exercise of his powers under section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). This members, including the petitioners, did show cause. However, by an order dated 17th July, 1974, the said Managing Committee was removed and management was entrusted to the Administrator, respondent No 2. Appeals filed by some of these members were dismissed. This Special Civil Application filed by another member is directed against the order dated 17th July, 1974.

(2.) Mr. R.M. Agarwal and Mr. Dhanuka, the learned Advocates appearing for respondents Nos. 2, 4 and 5 raised preliminary objections. According to Mr. Agarwal, failure to avail of remedy of appeal and revision under sections 152 and 154 of the Act is fatal. Now, even if certain allegations about mala fides and Government interference are ignored for want of evidence, the dismissal of appeals of others, in this case, makes these remedies as no more than empty formalities This apart, the petitioner wanted to urge that provision as to consultation under section 78 is mandatory. The contrary decisions of Division Bench of this Court dated 28th July, 1965, in Special Civil Application No. 763 of 1965, would preclude him from raising this point in appeal, etc. Existence of alternate remedy is only a factor, and cannot, and does not operate as an absolute bar. According to Mr. Dhanuka the period for which the petitioner was elected, having already expired the petitioner had no subsisting interest on the date of application. It is, however, not in dispute that the said period was extended by an Ordinance and the petitioner continued to be the member of the said Managing Committee till the date of the impugned order, notwithstanding the expiry of the original period of the membership. These objections cannot be upheld.

(3.) The only point urged by Dr. Naik is that notwithstanding the consultation with the Federal Society being made obligatory under section 78 of the Act, Respondent No. 1 in this case did not as much even attempt to so consult before the impugned removal. Now, it is true that respondent No. 1 has not done anything in this case beyond sending a copy of the show cause notice to the Chairman of the Federal Society, soliciting opinion on the proposed removal and asking it further if it would act as an Administrator. The said copy on the face of it does not even purport to address the Federal Society itself. The contents also give an impression as though, not the opinion of the Society, but of its Chairman personally is intended to be sought. Respondent No. 1 also does not appear to have sent any reminder or otherwise made any attempt to get the reply from the said Federal Society. Even so, these defects appear to me to be more of the form than of any substance. The copy of the notice does indicate in sufficient details the charges on the prima facie evidence of which the removal of the Committee was required to be considered. The notice was addressed to the Chairman as the Principal Officer of the said Federal Society. Any one could easily gather, on reading it, as towhy and what was being proposed and why the copy was sect. No Chairman could pretend in the face of these contents that, he could not gather what all this was about or that it was meant for him alone, and not for the Society of which he happened to be the Chairman. If indeed the Society was interested, it could have easily asked for more information, if really the information conveyed was inadequate in any manner. In fact, there is nothing to indicate that the Federal Society has any grievance whatsoever on this count. It is not disputed that all such correspondence with the Society is ordinarily addressed to the Chairman as its Principal Officer. It is difficult to find any fault with this mode of consultation, as far as it goes, and also difficult to invalidate the order on these grounds alone.