DILIP BHAGWANTRAO INGOLE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF COOPERATION AND THE REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES MAHARASHTRA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule made returnable forthwith.

(2.) With consent of learned Counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal of immediately.

(3.) The petitioners are the members of the Managing Committee of respondent No. 3 Punjabrao Deshmukh Urban Co-operative Bank Limited, Amravati. Respondent No. 4 was previously an employee of the State Bank and prosecution has been launched against him by the bank for certain offences. Respondent No. 4, who is also share holder and member of the Bank, made an application to the Commissioner of Registrar Co-operative Societies alleging that Annual General Meeting of the said Society was held on 14.8.2005 and prior to that the Auditor's Report about accounts of 2004-05 was already in receipt but that report was not placed before the Annual General Meeting of the Society and thus there was violation of provisions of section 75(4) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. This is an offence under section 146(f) punishable under section 147(f) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Besides that he alleged that the petitioners as members of the Managing Committee had failed to maintain proper accounts for the year 2004-05. According to him the figure of the account pertaining to loan etc. disclosed in the statement of account placed before the Annual General Meeting were at variance with the report of the Auditor in respect of the same. He wanted to prosecute the petitioners under section 147(f) and (k) and for that purpose no prosecution could be launched under the said section except with the previous sanction of the Registrar as provided under section 148(3) of the Act. Therefore, respondent No. 4 moved the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies to accord sanction for the said purpose. By order dated 14.9.2006 the Co-operative Commissioner of Registrar of Co-operative Societies accorded sanction as prayed by respondent No. 4 for prosecution of the petitioners. That order was challenged under section 154 of the Act before the Government and the Minister of Co-operative rejected that revision, hence this petition.