PRABHU SHRIRAM SAHAKARI DUDH VYAWASAIK SANSTHA MARYADIT DAHIGAON TQ AND DIST AHMEDNAGAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. By consent rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioner society has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Articles 14, 19 (1) (c), (g) to challenge the permission dated 3-10-1996 granted to a proposed co-operative society i. e. the respondent No. 3. The petitioner society was registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act on 26-3-93. The societys functioning is in the village Dahigaon having population of 1147 of 197 families. The petitioner society contends that it is collecting milk approximately 279 litres from the village. The petitioner has further stated that there is another society which is also collecting milk on an average 230 Litres. This latter society is also a proposed society from the said village. According to the petitioner, the total availability of the milk in the village is approximately 630 litres. On the basis of the Government Resolution dated 2-4-1993, there is no scope for registering the third society. According to the petitioner, permission to the third proposed society cannot be granted as the criteria prescribed in the said Government Resolution for collection of milk are not satisfied. The petitioner society contends that the decision to grant such permission to the respondent No. 3 is not only beyond the scope of the Government Resolution dated 2-4-93 but, is mala fide and under the political pressure from the local M. L. A. respondent No. 4 herein. According to the petitioner the conditions prescribed in the Government Resolution were relaxed for collection of the milk. The petitioner had initially challenged the order dated 3rd October, 1996 granting permission to the respondent No. 3 to open Bank Account and start milk collection. It appears that after the writ petition was filed, the respondent No. 3 was granted registration on 19-10-1996 by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner has challenged by amendment, the decision of the respondent No. 2 the Assistant Registrar to grant registration to the respondent No. 3 society on 19-10-1996. The petitioner has amended petition after leave granted by this Court. The petitioner challenged both these decisions of the Assistant Registrar i. e. the order dated 3rd October, 96 granting permission to the respondent No. 3 society to open Bank account and collect milk and also the decision dated 19-10-1996 to register the respondent No. 3 society under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner also challenged the order dated 18-3-1996 passed by the respondent No. 5 the Minister for State relaxing the conditions for the respondent No. 3 society for collection of milk. According to the petitioner, the Minister had no powers tot relax the milk collection conditions prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 2-4-93 and subsequently, modified by another Government Resolution dated 29-4-19995. The main thrust of the petitioners opposition to the registration of the respondent No. 3 society in the village is that of political pressure and influence, in particular the local M. L. A. respondent No. 4. The petitioner has, therefore, based its case that in spite of there being no scope for registration of third society, the authorities have registered the third society for collection of milk solely for the extraneous reasons i. e political pressure.

(3.) THE main contesting society i. e. respondent No. 3 has submitted that the petitioner society and the another proposed society i. e. Sitamai Co-operative Society are hand-in-gloves with each other and there is only difference in the name. The second proposed society is nominal to prevent a third society to come in the village. On behalf of the respondent No. 3 it is further submitted that they are collecting adequate milk and the petitioner society will not be adversely affected at all. The respondent No. 3 has naturally supported the decisions of the authorities including the decision of the Minister who have relaxed the milk collection condition. The respondent No. 3 society has further submitted that looking at the present collection of the milk as recorded by the Federation, Ahmednagar Zilla Sahakari Doodh Vyavsaik Sangh, the third society was rightly registered and that under section 7 the State Government has power to exempt the society from any conditions. It is also submitted that the Minister, the Assistant Registrar as well as Registrar all have considered the report of the Milk Inspector and all other material from record and, there is nothing objectionable in the order of the authorities to register the respondent No. 3 society and also to grant permission to it to open Bank Account and collect milk. Apart from the merits, the respondent No. 3 has taken a serious exception to the maintainability of the very writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy available under sections 152 and 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. According to the learned advocate for the respondent No. 3 all the impugned orders dated 3rd October, 96 passed by the Assistant Registrar, the order dated 18-10-1996 passed by the Minister and the order dated 19-10-1996 passed by the Assistant Registrar granting registration to the respondent No. 3 can be challenged under sections 152 and 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and since there is statutory alternative remedy provided for, the present writ petition is not maintainable. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 3 society has been collecting milk from the village since 23-5-1996 while the petition is filed on 9-10-1996 and, therefore, it suffers from delay. Pursuant to the order dated 13-3-1996 passed by the Honourable Minister to relax the conditions of milk collection, the respondent No. 3 society had started collection of milk. The petitioner had not challenged the said order and the respondent No. 3 had already started collection of milk on a large scale successfully. To stop the functioning of respondent No. 3 society after such a long period is not proper, contends the learned advocate for the respondent No. 3. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 3 that even at present they are collecting milk on a large scale without adversely affecting the petitioner society or its other proposed Seetamai Society. It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the respondent No. 3 society that the present petition is filed to have its own monopoly in the village and to thwart the growth of the village and progress and prosperity of the villagers. According to third respondent , there is lot of scope and vacuum for the functioning of the respondent No. 3 society.