SUBHAS ANNA KOOL Vs. DAUND TAL SAHAKARI DUDH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. Heard forthwith by consent. The appellant challenges the judgment and order dated 25-10-2005 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.7404 of 2005. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge has set aside the order dated 18-10-2005 passed by the respondent No.2. By the said order dated 18-10-2005 the respondent No.1 was permitted to open bank account and to collect milk in the specified area.

(2.) The challenge to the impugned order is two-fold; firstly, that the order which was sought to be impugned in the said writ petition was an administrative order and, therefore, the petition could not have been entertained by the learned single Judge in view of the provisions comprised under Chapter XVII, Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, hereinafter called as "the said Rules". Secondly, that a fraud was sought to be practised upon the Court in as much as that it was sought to be represented by the respondent No.1 that it had submitted the proposal to the Registrar of Taluka Dudh Sangh complete in all respects as long back as 24-8-2005 when factually the affidavits of 152 primary milk societies were submitted much later. Being so, the application filed by the respondent No.1 was not a complete proposal in accordance with the provisions of law on the day when it was allowed by the respondent No.2.

(3.) On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent No.1 that the order passed by the respondent No.2 was in exercise of powers under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as "the said Act" r/w the Government Resolution dated 15-9-2005, hereinafter called as "the Government Resolution" and therefore it was a quasi-judicial order. In view of the said policy directives, in order to register a new taluka dudh sangh in Daund Taluka, the respondent No.1 collected resolutions from various primary milk societies in the Taluka of Daund. There are about 202 registered primary village level societies in the Taluka and the respondent claims to have received support from 160 societies and about 148 societies having executed their affidavits in support of the respondents. On the basis of those documents, the respondent No.1 submitted its proposal. In September, 2005 the respondent No.1 came to know that the appellant herein had also submitted its proposal for registration for taluka dudh sangh for Daund Taluka. They learnt about attempt on the part of the Government to consider the application of the appellant and therefore an application was filed by the respondent No.1 for intervention pointing out that they have majority of support as compared to the appellant from the primary societies. On 20-10-2005 the respondent No.1 received an information that without hearing the respondent No.1 or the other concerned parties, the respondent No.2 through the Under Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department had passed an order dated 18-10-2005 permitting the appellant to collect milk and to open bank account. Since the said order was in total breach of the principles of natural justice and in violation of the provisions of the said Act read with the said Government policy directives issued under Section 4 of the said Act, they filed the Writ Petition bearing No.7404 of 2005 which came to be allowed by the impugned order directing the respondent No.2 to consider the matter afresh and to pass appropriate order in accordance with the provisions of law, after hearing the parties, while setting aside the order of the respondent No.2 passed on 18-10-2005. As the authority had passed the said order without considering the proposal submitted by the respondent No.1, the non-compliance of the basic principles of natural justice was apparent and hence the learned single Judge was justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction. As regards the second ground of challenge in the petition, it is the case of the respondent No.1 that there was mistake in stating the dates of events in the synopsis but it was purely unintentional and by oversight, besides being not relevant for decision in the matter and in any case, the same had not in any manner influenced the learned single Judge in arriving at the finding which has been arrived at in the impugned judgment to warrant interference against the order which was challenged in the petition.