SAHEBRAO NARAYANRAO PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. V. D. Salunke, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. E. P. Sawant, learned Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Rule, returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties.

(2.) THE present petition is directed against the order dated 19-8-1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 the Director (Administration) and the Additional Registrar Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune under section 77-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The said order is passed in the following circumstances :

(3.) THE petitioner No. 1 is the Chairman of the petitioner No. 2 Co-operative Society. Initially the term of five years of the Board of Directors of the petitioner No. 2 was completed on 11-12-1997. However the said term was extended by the Government in view of the provisions of section 73-G (2) by further period of one year by the order dated 11-12-1997 and the extended term of the Board of Directors of the petitioner No. 2 sugar factory came to an end on 10-12-1998. Thereafter, the Government has not extended the term of the Board of Directors of the petitioner No. 2 although the Government invited the proposal for extension of time from the petitioner by the letter dated 20-1-1999 and that the petitioner submitted the said proposal on 4-2-1999, still the fact remains that the Government has not passed any order on the said proposal on the date when the impugned order under section 77-A was passed by the respondent No. 2, or as on today. One more aspect which needs to be mentioned is that, even though the proposal was called for extension of time, it was not possible for the Government to extend the said term of the Board of Directors of the petitioner No. 2 society because section 73-G (2) permits the Government to extend the term of the Board of Directors of any sugar factory and/or any specified society to the extent of one year only. And said power was already exercised by the Government when the extension was granted on 11-12-1997. However, the inference that follows is that as a result of passing of the impugned order, the said proposal for extension of time is deemed to have been rejected by the Government probably having realised incapacity with the Government to grant such extension in accordance with law.