Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1593 (BOM)

Charanjitsingh Melaram Arora v. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Tahsil) Umred, Tah. Umred, District; Nagpur

2009-11-25

VASANTI A.NAIK

body2009
Judgment : Oral Judgment: By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Umred on 12.1.2001, as also the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur on 24.4.2001 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Assistant Registrar. 2. The petitioner was elected as a Member / Director of the Bhiwapur Taluka Shetki Kharedi Vikri Sahakari Society, for a period of 5 years. The election of the Board of directors were held and the petitioner was elected as President. The respondent no.2, a Director of the same cooperative society, made a complaint against the petitioner to the Assistant Registrar and certain enquiries were started on the basis of the complaint. The petitioner received a notice from the District Deputy Registrar on 19.8.2000 and the petitioner submitted his explanation to the same on 11.9.2000. In the meanwhile the District Deputy Registrar asked the Assistant Registrar to conduct the enquiry in the matter and the Assistant Registrar on conducting an enquiry issued a notice dated 8.9.2000 to the petitioner. The petitioner replied this notice on 25.9.2000 and asked the Assistant Registrar to consider the reply filed by the petitioner on 11.9.2000 to the notice issued by the District Deputy Registrar. On 15.1.2009, the petitioner received an order date 12.1.2001 issued by the Assistant Registrar, by which the authority had removed the petitioner from the post of President of the Society. The petitioner challenged the order dated 12.1.2001 before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur in an appeal under section 152 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The Divisional Joint Registrar however, by the impugned order dated 24.4.2001 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.1.2001 and 24.4.2001 by the instant writ petition. 3. Shri Raut, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authorities were not justified in disqualifying the petitioner and removing the petitioner from the post of President of the society. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Assistant Registrar, had not given 15 days notice to the petitioner as contemplated by the provisions of section 78(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Assistant Registrar, had not given 15 days notice to the petitioner as contemplated by the provisions of section 78(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the petitioner was merely doing the business of Adtiya and this business was not in competition with the business of the society and in such circumstances the authorities were not justified in removing the petitioner form the post of President by invoking the provisions of section 73 FF (1)(V) of the Act of 1960. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that had the Assistant Registrar considered the reply filed by the petitioner on 11.9.2000, the order of his removal would not have been passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no effective consultation with the Federal Society in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in 1994 Mh.l.J. 1277 to substantiate his submission that the petitioner could not have incurred disqualification under section 73FF (1)(V) of the Act of 1960. 4. Shri A.M. Deshpande, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 supported the order passed by the Assistant Registrar and the Divisional Joint Registrar and submitted that the findings recorded by both the authorities in regard to the business carried on by the petitioner are pure findings of facts and the same need not be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The learned AGP then submitted that the authorities had considered the reply filed by the petitioner on 11.9.2000 before removing him from the post of president. The learned AGP submitted that the Federal Society was consulted in the matter and since no reply was received from the Federal Society for a long time, the Assistant Registrar proceeded to pass the order. The learned AGP relied on the decision reported in 2002(5) Mh.L.J. 236 to canvass that there is no obligation cast upon the authority to wait indefinitely for an advise as it is necessary for the federal Society to act swiftly and promptly and to impart its advise to the society seeking its consultation. In any case, according to the learned AGP, the petitioner had indeed admitted the allegations in the show cause notice and had merely stated that his business was not in competition with the business of the society. In any case, according to the learned AGP, the petitioner had indeed admitted the allegations in the show cause notice and had merely stated that his business was not in competition with the business of the society. The learned AGP sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Shri Mohta, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 also supported the orders passed by both the authorities and sought for the dismissal of the writ petition as according to learned counsel for the respondent no.2 both the authorities had considered the reply filed by the petitioner and had found that the petitioner was liable to be disqualified under the provisions of section 73FF of the Act. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the impugned order dated 12.1.2001 and 24.4.2001. It is necessary to note that the cooperative society was carrying on the business of distribution of fertilizers, seeds, insecticides and other agricultural inputs to the farmers. The society was also supposed to purchase agricultural produce from the farmers with intention to give them reasonable price for their produce. The petitioner had clearly admitted in his reply that he was doing the business as Adtiya, but the same was not in competition with the business carried on by the sale purchase society. Both the authorities considered that the name of the petitioner stood at serial no.44 and 53 in the list of persons running the business of Adtiya. The petitioner was a Commission Agent in the yard of the A.P.M.C. Bhivapur and his family members were engaged in sale purchase of agricultural produce. Petitioner’s name further appeared in the voters list of traders and commission agents of A.P.M.C. Bhiwapur. Both the authorities considered the irregularities committed by the petitioner while trading in Soyabean. Cogent reasons were recorded by the Assistant Registrar for holding that the petitioner was carrying on the same business as that of the cooperative society. 7. The submissions on behalf of the petitioner that 15 days clear notice was not given to the petitioner to furnish his reply is ill founded as the notice was issued to the petitioner by the Assistant Registrar on 8.9.2000 and the petitioner had furnished his reply to the same on 25.9.2000 and had asked the Assistant Registrar to also consider the reply dated 11.9.2000 which was submitted to the District Deputy Registrar. By way of amendment to the writ petition it was canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that there was no effective consultation with the Federal Society, but as rightly pointed out on behalf of the respondent no.1, the Federal Society was immediately informed and the advise was called. The reply of the petitioner and the complaint was also sent to the Federal Society along with the report of the Assistant Registrar. But since the Federal Society did not send its reply for a considerable time, the Assistant Registrar passed the impugned order on 12.1.2009. It would be useful to refer to the judgment reported in 2002 (5) Mh.L.J. 236 in this regard. In fact the judgment reported in 1994 Mh.L.J. Page 1277 and relied by the counsel for the petitioner can not be made applicable to the facts of this case as it is laid down in the aforesaid decision that merely because the relative of the persons concerned, is carrying on similar business, that would not ipso facto, invite disqualification. Such is not the case here. The authorities found that the petitioner himself was running business of the kind, carried out by the society, in the area of operation of the society. 8. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.