LAWS(BOM)-1988-1-49

WASUDEO PANDURANG MOKHARE Vs. REGISTRAR CO OP SOC

Decided On January 28, 1988
WASUDEO PANDURANG MOKHARE Appellant
V/S
REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MAHARASHTRA STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A mandate is claimed against the Registrar of the co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune, directing him to convene a special meeting of the District Loan Committee, Nagpur to consider the motion of no-confidence against its Chairman.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this litigation may be briefly stated as follows. A District Loan Committee of the State Land Development Bank was constituted in pursuance of Section 112-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative societies Act, 1960. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 and one Baburao madhaorao Tidke were elected as the delegates of this Committee. There were three more ex-officio delegates. After the coustitution of this committee, Baburao Madhaorao Tidke was elected as a Chairman of the committee. On or about 9-11-1987, petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 submitted a communication to the respondent No. 1 requesting him to call a special meeting of the said Committee of the Society to consider the motion of no confidence against Baburao Madhaorao Tidke. A resolution to that effect was also furnished along with that submission. Under the law, on receipt of such submission the Registrar has to call a special meeting of the Committee to consider the motion of no-confidence. However, inspite of the submission the Registrar did not call the meeting. Hence this writ petition has been filed claiming a mandate against the Registrar to call such a meeting.

(3.) THE case of the petitioners is that the District Loan Committee is a committee created by the statute under Section 112-A of the Maharashtra co-operative Societies Act and as such, the provision, of Section 73-ID of the Act are applicable to it. The Chairman is occupying his status by virtue of his election to that post and as such he is amenable to the provisions of Section 73-ID. The Registrar was, therefore, duty-bound under the statute to call a special meeting. He has failed to perform his duties. This court has been moved to issue a mandate to the Registrar to call such a meeting, Initially, the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies was the only respondent. During the course of hearing at the preliminary stage, the state of Maharashtra was allowed to be joined as respondent No. 2. An intervention was also allowed.