RAJABHAU GOVINDASA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petition 4641/2008 is the earlier petition filed under apprehension that Respondent No. 2 Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Amravati would pass adverse orders in Appeal against the Petitioners under Section 78 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as MCS Act) superseding the elected board of directors i.e. Petitioners and upholding appointment of Administrator (Respondent No 4) on a co-operative society by name Karanja Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit i.e Respondent No. 5. Earlier on 19/6/2008 Respondent No. 3 District Registrar passed an order under said provision superseding the board of directors and appointing Respondent No. 4 as Administrator on said Society. This order came to be challenged in an appeal under Section 152 of MCS Act before Respondent No. 2. In Writ Petition this court issued notice on 21/10 2008 and made it returnable on 6/11/2008 but gave liberty to move for interim orders if contingencies arose therefor. Shortly thereafter Writ Petition No.4710/2008 came to be filed complaining that Respondent No. 2 passed the orders but, antedated the same to show that it came to be passed on 8/10/2008. By said orders the Appeal filed by Petitioners came to be dismissed and appointment of Respondent No. 4 as Administrator on Respondent No. 5 society came to be upheld.

(2.) Only point raised before me is about competency of Respondent No. 3 to pass orders in exercise of powers under Section 78 of MCS Act by contending that said statutory powers are delegated to Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies at Karanja and Respondent No. 3 being his subordinate, in view of express provisions of Section 3A of said Act cannot and could not have exercised the power to pass final orders under Section 78. It is therefore obvious that challenge in both writ petitions being identical, in view of filing of subsequent Writ Petition No. 4710/2008 because of subsequent events, the earlier Writ Petition No. 4641/2008 is rendered only of academic importance or rather infructuous. Considering the nature of challenge, Rule made returnable forthwith and petitions are heard finally by consent.

(3.) The facts relevant for this adjudication are not much in dispute. On 18/12/2005, in general elections the present Petitioners came to be elected on board of directors of Respondent No 5 Society and in their first meeting on 11/1/2006 president came to be elected. Said president resigned on 18/6/2008 and thereafter Petitioner No. 1 is elected as President. One member Krushnarao Marotrao Bagde lodged complaint on 30/8/2007 and Hon'ble State Minister for Co8 operation, Marketing and Textile by his remarks directed his department to verify it, to take immediate action and submit report within 2 months. Some inquiry was then conducted, and inquiry report was submitted and on 24/12/2007 Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karanja issued show cause notice under Section 78 (1) of MCS Act. Petitioners submitted their reply and thereafter on 11/2/2008, the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Washim issued memorandum and for administrative convenience additional charge of Karanja taluka with Assistant Registrar of Mangrulpir (an adjacent taluka) Shri Bhonsale till then was taken away and was placed with Shri J.M. Ghatole, Cooperative Officer Grade I at Karanja itself. The impugned order dated 19/6/2008 under Section 78 (1) of MCS Act is passed by this Cooperative Officer. This order was then questioned in an Appeal under Section 152 before Respondent No. 2 Divisional Joint Registrar and said authority granted interim stay to Petitioners on 21/6/2008. He then heard Appeal at length and then Petitioners approached this court in Writ Petition No. 4641/2008 with apprehension that Respondent No. 2 may not give justice to them. We are not concerned with reasons for this belief of Petitioners as that is not relevant for considering the challenge as raised. Thereafter Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.4710/2008 contending that Respondent No. 2 has passed order subsequently but antedated it as 8/10/2008 to avoid challenge in Writ Petition No. 4641/2008. Only contention pressed into service is incompetency of Respondent No.3 to exercises jurisdiction under Section 78 (1) of MCS Act.