Uttam Sopan Babar v. State Of Maharashtra Through The Honble Minister For Co-Operation Govt. Of Mah. And ORS.
1 901.4311.19 wp.doc ISM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4311 OF 2019 Sanjay Sadhu Dabhade .....Petitioner V/s.
State of Maharashtra through the Hon'ble .....Respondents Minister for Cooperation Govt. of Mah.
And others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4231 OF 2019 Janardan Sukhadev Shinde ....Petitioner V/s.
State of Maharashtra through the Hon'ble .....Respondents Minister for Cooperation Govt. of Mah.
And others WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4354 OF 2019 Uttam Sopan Babar .....Petitioner V/s.
State of Maharashtra through the Hon'ble .....Respondents Minister for Cooperation Govt. of Mah.
And others
2 901.4311.19 wp.doc Mr. Sushant Prabhune for the Petitioner Mr. S. S. Panchpor AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3 & 6 CORAM :
NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE :
JUNE 12, 2019.
P.C.
A motion is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for deletion of respondent nos. 7, 8 & 9. The prayer is accepted. Petitioner is permitted to delete respondent nos. 7, 8 & 9. The case of the petitioner is, he preferred an application seeking disqualification of certain directors before the Registrar pursuant to provisions of Section 73CA of The Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act, 1960 Act. (Hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for the sake of brevity) The said application according to him is disposed of by the Competent Authority thereby relegating him to alternate remedy of filing the Election Dispute as the said Authority viz. Registrar was of the view that the issue can be looked into in an Election Dispute before the Cooperative Court. As such, this petition.
3 901.4311.19 wp.doc The learned counsel for the petitioner made two submissions. (a) The powers to disqualify a person being member of a Committee of a Cooperative Society vest with the Registrar in view of provisions of 73CA of the said Act. Registrar as such is required to exercise the said powers in accordance with law. (b) That before passing the order impugned, neither the petitioner was put to notice nor an opportunity was offered. Per contra the learned AGP appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 3 & 6 would urge that the petitioner before election of respondent no.5sugar factory has approached this Court questioning the qualification of the candidates to contest the election. According to him, since the petition was disposed of, the Authority was justified in passing the order impugned. The learned AGP would further urge that since the complaint preferred involves disputed questions, the Authority was right in relegating the petitioner to alternate remedy.
4 901.4311.19 wp.doc Having delve upon the controversy brought before this Court, this Court thought it fit to dispense with the notice to respondent nos. 4 & 5 as the order passed in innocuous.
The least that was expected of respondent no. 2authority which is armed with the powers under Section 73CA of the said Act to order disqualification of a member being a member of a managing committee to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
What is noticed from the order impugned is the petitioner was neither put to notice nor he was heard. The respondent Authority has not passed a reasoned order in the matter so as to justify the view expressed by it. That being so, in my opinion, the order impugned dated 15/01/2019 passed by respondent no. 2 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is relegated to said Authority viz. respondent no. 2 who is directed to decide the complaint/application of the petitioner preferred under section 73CA
5 901.4311.19 wp.doc of the said Act in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and pass appropriate orders.
The petitions stand partly allowed in the above terms. [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]