BHIKHAJI RAO DHONDIBA JAYBHAY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Raghuvanshi holding for Mr. Nagargoje, Counsel for the petitioner, mr, A. M. Kanade, Govt. Pleader for respondents no 1,2,3,4 and 21 and Mr subhash Mundhe, Counsel for respondents no. 5 and 24. None appears for the rest of the respondents.

(2.) THE present petition has been filed for the relief to decide the question of chief Promoter, on the basis of merit. Our attention was invited to writ Petition No. 1837 of 1997 wherein the directions have been already issued to hold the elections within a period of six months as per the statement made by the learned Govt. Pleader in that petition. It was further directed that the applications which are received by the joint Director of the Co-operative Societies shall be disposed of within a period of two months on the basis of merit. However, when it is revealed to this Court that the orders of this Court have not been complied with, this Court has issued notices to the respective Officers including the Commissioner of Sugar to appear in this Court and file their explanation as to why the orders of this Court are not being implemented. It is reported to this Court that Regional Joint Director shri Ghuge has received the applications numbering 4023 and, therefore, in order to ascertain genuineness of the documents, the Special Auditor was directed to carry out the audit of the respondent Karkhana so that the applications pending before the Joint Director can be disposed of. We find that this was a surprising modus operandi evolved by Mr. Ghuge for disposing of the applications, which are directed by this Court to be decided by him. In fact, whether a person is entitled to be member of the Sugar factory or not has to be decided by the Registrar in view of the provisions of Sections 22, 23 read with the Bye laws of the concerned society and the said function is a quasi judicial function. Instead of discharging the said function in accordance with the law, as it appears from the Conduct that he was more interested in dodging the orders of this Court than to decide the applications as per the directions of this Court, he has insisted for the special audit and further tried to request the Government Pleader to get the time extended. He made a grievance that the record of the society was not made available by the concerned promoters, Chief Promoters and Managing Directors and for that reason the audit cannot be carried out. We find that the Senior Officer like Mr. Ghuge making such a complaint and approached to Government Pleader's office for the purposes of extension of time, when law provides and have armed with such Officers with powers to solve their problems created by the managing committee in such a way. In fact, we are unable to understand as to why the powers under Sections 80 and 89-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act have not been exercised by mr. Ghuge while discharging the said duty. Whole inaction on the part of the officers, as we find, is only for the purposes of the prolongation of the election process than to go with the election as directed by this Court. The reasons are not known from the record, but it appears that the responsible officers like Director of sugar and Joint Director of Sugar will not indulge into such act of inaction unless there is some interference in their activities. However, the fact still remains why these officers have failed in discharging their duties as directed by this Court. Now, on notice Mr. Ghuge has tendered unconditional apology and has further filed an affidavit stating that the allegations made against the Government Pleader's office are to be deleted. We have allowed Mr. Ghuge to file such affidavit and, therefore, that part of the affidavit, which is derived by him to be removed by Mr. Ghuge against Government Pleader shall be treated as deleted.

(3.) WHAT is pertinent to be noted is that Mr. Ghuge dared to make allegations against Government Pleader's office when the Government Pleader, by D. O. letter dated 27. 3. 1998 has informed Mr. Ghuge and also by way of information to the commissioner of Sugar that the reasons put forth by them for the purposes of extension of time are not convincing and, therefore, time cannot be extended by filing Civil Application. They were given to understand by Mr. Kanade, learned government Pleader that they shall comply with the orders of this Court. In fact, when the Government Pleader's office gives such an advice, the Officers are under the obligation to obey the said directions and perform the duties. This is an obligation on the part of the Officers apart from the directions which have been issued by this Court. We find that the Government Pleader has done his duty in accordance with the directions of this Court, but the Officers, instead of looking to such letter but without making reference to the said letter, tried to justify their act by making statement that the Government. Pleader was requested to get extended the time, which was not done by him. This conduct on the part of the Officers is required to be deprecated and we observe here that the State will take henceforth the precaution that their officers shall not deal in such a manner with the office of the Government Pleader.