KERBAJI MAROTI RAO SHIDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was elected as a Chairman of Harbal Seva Sahakari Society in the election held on 15th of August 1981, for a term of three years. He was also elected as a Director of Kandhar Taluka Shetkari Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh in the year 1982 for a term of five years. The petitioner had taken loan from respondent No. 5 the Maharashtra State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. for purchase of electric motor in the year 1971 which was repayable in 10 yearly instalments. According to the petitioner the last such instalment was due in the year 1981-82. In the year 1973 he again took a loan of Rs. 6,300/- for construction of a well and this loan was also repayable in 10 equal instalments within a period of 10 years and last such instalment will become due in the year 1987-88. It is his case that earlier loan of Rs. 3,000/- was paid back within the period of 10 years and he was paying the instalments regularly. Petitioner is also a shareholder of Kalambar Vibhag Sahakari Sakbar Karkbana Ltd. The Respondent No. 5 the Maharashtra State Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited had given instructions to the Sakhar Karkhana that the amount due from the petitioner towards the loan instalments, should be deducted from the bills payble to him towards the price of sugarcane supplied by the petitioner. This arrangement was made as per the approved practice recognised by Section 48 (A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Thus it is his case that he was not a defaulter under Rule 58 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. However, at the instance of persons interested, the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, vide letter dated 9th August, 1983, informed the petitioner that he has ceased to be a Director of Respondent No. 4 the Kandhar Taluka Shetkari Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh under Rule 58 (2) of the Rules. It is this intimation issued by the Deputy Registrar, which is challenged in this writ petition on various grounds.

(2.) Shri Godhamgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended before us that in fact and in law the petitioner was not a defaulter under Rule 58. Further, no order or intimation could have been issued under Rule 58 (2) by the District Deputy Registrar, without taking recourse to Section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. According to the learned Counsel Rule 58 (2) only lays down the consequences or result of disqualifications and does not confer any power upon the Deputy Registrar to pass such an order. Rule 58 (2) is not self-operative. An order in that behalf could only be passed by the competent authority under Section 78 of the Act which deals with the removal of a member of a Society and unless recourse was taken to Section 78 it was not open to the District Deputy Registrar to pass the impugned order. In support of this contention he has placed strong reliance upon the decision of this Court in Keshavrao Narayanrao Patil v; District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Akola and others, [1987 Mah. LJ 709] and a decision of Supreme Court in Moolchand Sharma v. State of U.P., (AIR 1967 SC 112]. It is also contended by the petitioner, that if it is held that no enquiry or order under Section 78 is necessary in a case covered by Rule 58, then the said rule is arbitrary and unreasonable.

(3.) On the other hand, it is contended by Mr. A. S. Bobde, learned Advocate General, and Shri J. V. Savant, learned Government Pleader, that Rule 58 (2) is self-operative and no further action under Section 78 is contemplated. In support of this contention they have placed reliance upon the earlier decisions of this Court in Roha Ashtami Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. v. The Judge, Co-operative Court, Alibag, [1977 Mh. LJ 712 : AIR 1978 Bom. 621, and Murlidhar Tukaram Bhandekar v. The Nagpur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., [1986 Mh. LJ 599].