MURLIDHAR BHAULAL MALU Vs. SUDHAKAR HONAJI PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) In this writ petitions the provisions of section 73-FF of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 as a whole are challenged on various grounds. However, we are mainly concerned with the provisions of sections 73(i)(c) and 73-FF(1)(vi) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Section 73-FF came to be inserted in the said Act by Maharashtra Act XX of 1986, which came into force with effect from 12th of May, 1986. By the said Act section 78 also came to be amended. Section 73-FF deals with the disqualification of membership of the Committee. Since section as a whole is challenged before us it will be worthwhile to reproduce the said section verbatum :

(3.) Section 73-FFF deals with the eligibility for re-appointment, or re-election as a member of the Committee. Under sub-section (3) of section 73-FFF it is provided that a member of a committee who has ceased to be a member thereof on account of having incurred any disqualification other than disqualifications referred to in sub-section (1) and (2), shall unless otherwise specifically provided in the Act, be eligible to be re-nominated re-co-opted, re-appointed or re-elected as a member of the committee as soon as such disqualification ceases to exist. Then comes section 78 which deals with the power of removal of the Committee or member thereof. It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2245 of 1986 (Keshavrao Narayanrao Patil alias Babasaheb Dhabekar v. District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Akola and others)decided by V.A. Mohta and A.A. Desai, JJ, on 16th and 21st of April, 1987 Mh.L.J. 709 : 1987(3) Bom.C.R. 225 that the provisions of section 73-FF cannot be read in isolation and the same will have to be read with the provisions of section 78 of the said Act. The Division Bench further held that passing of the order of removal as required under the provisions of section 78 in the matter of incurring disqualification under section 73-FF(1) is mandatory and the cessation of membership under section 73-FF(2) is not automatic. Another Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Dharmadhikari, J.), was a party, in (Suresh Dnyandeo Khumkar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others) had an occasion to deal with the question of consultation with the Federal Society within the contemplation of section 78(1) of the said Act. Therefore, the challenge raised before us to section 73-FF of the said Act will have to be tested and understood in the context of these decisions. Though practically each and every sub-section of section 73-FF of the said Act was challenged, ultimately at the time of hearing, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cases with which we are concerned, arguments were restricted to the provisions of section 73-FF(1)(i)(c) and 73-FF(1)(vi) of the said Act. Therefore, we will prefer to keep open the challenge to other sub-sections of section 73-FF.