JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Mr. Borkar, Advocate for the Petitioner in both the Writ Petitions, Mr. Dani, Advocate instructed by Mr. Patil for the Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions and Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in both the Petitions. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respective Advocates for the Respondents waive service. 3. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these two Petitions on specific request of all the concerned Advocates, these Petitions are being disposed of by the following common order. STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND GOVERNMENT POLICIES: 4. The registration of a Cooperative Society is governed by the provisions of Section 4 of the MCS Act, 1960 which reads thus: “4. Societies which may be registered : A society, which has as its objects the promotion of the economic interests or general welfare of its members, or of the public, in accordance will cooperative principles, or a society established with the object of facilitating the operations of any such society, may be registered under this Act: Provided that, no society shall be registered if it is likely to be economically unsound, or the registration of which may have an adverse effect on development [of the cooperative movement, or the registration of which may be contrary to the policy directives which the State Government may, from time to time, issue.].” 5. In respect of Multipurpose Service Cooperative Societies, the Government of Maharashtra has issued Government Resolution dated 07.02.2001 thereby containing policy directives in respect of the registration of such society. In both the Petitions the Affidavit-in-Reply has been filed by Sukdeo B. Patil, the Joint Secretary-cum-Officer on Special Duty to the Government of Maharashtra. There is no statement in the said Affidavit to the effect that the policy directives dated 07.02.2001 have been subsequently withdrawn. 6. It appears that the Central Government had appointed a Study Group/Committee presided over by Professor Vaidyanathan for strengthening the Short-term Cooperative Credit Structure (STCCS). The State Government had decided to implement the recommendations of Vaidyanathan Committee and accordingly, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed between the Government of India, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) and the Government of Maharashtra on 13th November, 2006. The State Government had decided to implement the recommendations of Vaidyanathan Committee and accordingly, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was executed between the Government of India, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) and the Government of Maharashtra on 13th November, 2006. Condition No.15 of the said MOU provides as under: “The State shall take appropriate decision on closure or merger of such Cooperatives as remain ineligible for assistance under the package within six months from such decision being taken by the State Level Implementation Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘SLIC’ for sake of brevity)”. 7. It appears that the meeting of the SLIC was presided over by the Principal Secretary of Cooperation, Marketing and Textiles Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai on 11th January, 2007 and it was apparently decided not to register new Multipurpose Cooperative Societies. On the basis of the said decision, the Commissioner for Cooperation and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune issued the instructions by Circular dated 05th March, 2007 regarding the decision taken by the SLIC and informing the subordinate authorities not to forward any proposal for new registration permissions of any date to the office of the Commissioner. BRIEF RESUME OF FACTS 8. Respondent No.1 in W.P. No. 2808/2011 had submitted an Application for registration of a new society in village Dindewadi, Tal.Bhudargad, Dist. Kolhapur. The Respondent No.1 in W.P. No. 2809/2011 had submitted a similar proposal in respect of village Pangire, Tal. Bhudurgad, Dist.Kolhapur on 10.01.2008. 9. The Registration Authority, namely, Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Bhudargad passed two separate orders dated 04.02.2008 and 11.08.2008 respectively and W.P. Nos. 2808/2011 & 2809/2011 and the registration proposals of the Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions were rejected by relying on the Circular dated 05.03.2007 issued by the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, stating that Government has taken a policy decision not to register new Multipurpose Cooperative Credit Societies. 10. Aggrieved by these orders, the Respondent No.1 in W.P. No. 2808 of 2011 filed Appeal No. 18/2008 and Respondent No.1 in W.P. No. 2809 of 2011 filed Appeal No. 19/2008 before the learned DJR, CS, Kolhapur. However, both the Appeals were dismissed. Aggrieved by these orders, Respondent No.1 in both the Writ Petitions filed Revision Applications before the State Government which were admitted. 11. The Petitioners in both the Writ Petitions filed detailed replies. However, both the Appeals were dismissed. Aggrieved by these orders, Respondent No.1 in both the Writ Petitions filed Revision Applications before the State Government which were admitted. 11. The Petitioners in both the Writ Petitions filed detailed replies. Ultimately by Judgments and Orders dated 22.09.2008 the then Hon’ble Minister of State for Cooperation, Marketing, Textile and DeAddiction Activities allowed the Revision Application Nos. 247 of 2008 and 246 of 2008 respectively filed by the Respondent No.1 in both the Writ Petitions and the Societies were directed to be registered. 12. In the said Orders there was no discussion about the policy decision of the Government dated 7th February, 2001 or the Circular issued by the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of the Cooperative Societies on 05.03.2007. 13. Aggrieved by these Orders passed by the then Minister of State for Cooperation, the Petitioners in these Writ Petitions filed Writ Petition Nos. 7109 of 2008 and 7116 of 2008 respectively in this Court. Those two Petitions along with other Petitions were heard together by the learned single Judge R.V. More,J. and were allowed by the Judgment and Order dated 22nd July, 2010. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said Judgment contain reasons which read thus: 8. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and after going through the impugned order, along with the affidavit of the respective parties and also directives, I am of the considered view that the matters are required to be remanded back to the Hon’ble Minister for decision afresh on the respondent No.1’s proposal for registration. The perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Hon’ble Minister has proceeded on the basis of Government Resolution dated 7.2.2001. The circular dated 5.3.2007, is not even referred in the impugned order. In my opinion, the Hon’ble Minister should have considered the said circular of 2007 especially when the registration authority viz. Assistant Registrar, rejected respondent’s proposal on the basis of Circular dated 5.3.2007. In some of the cases, the Hon’ble Minister for Cooperation has entertained revision applications, even though same have been filed bypassing the remedy of appeal u/s 152 of the said Act. The Hon’ble Minister has not given any reason in the impugned order as to why said revisions are entertained. 9. In some of the cases, the Hon’ble Minister for Cooperation has entertained revision applications, even though same have been filed bypassing the remedy of appeal u/s 152 of the said Act. The Hon’ble Minister has not given any reason in the impugned order as to why said revisions are entertained. 9. It is now settled law that when the statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, it’s validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons, in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. A reference can be made to the decision of Constitutional Bench of Apex Court, in Mohinder Singh Gill vs Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 . This decision is clearly applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. In the facts and circumstances, I dispose of above all the petitions by passing following order. 14. Ultimately the registration of the Respondent No.1 Societies was quashed and set aside by the said Judgment and the Revision Applications were remanded to the Minister. 15. After remand, the Hon’ble Minister of State for Cooperation has passed impugned orders dated 30th March, 2011 and 15th March, 2011 respectively and the Revision Applications filed by the Respondent No.1 in both the Petitions were allowed. However, the operative order of the Hon’ble Minister confirmed and continued the earlier Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2008 which had been set aside by the learned single Judge of this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petitions. SUBMISSIONS OF ADVOCATES 16. Mr. Borkar submitted that in the first place the decision taken by the State Government to implement the recommendations of the Vaidyanathan Committee and tripartite MOU and various clauses contained therein are binding on the State Government. It was further submitted that the Circular dated 5th March, 2007 contained a policy decision of the State Government as contemplated by the proviso to Section 4. It was further submitted that in any case the said Circular dated 5th March, 2007 clearly indicates a conscious decision of the State Government that registration of a new multipurpose cooperative societies will be contrary to the cooperative principles and will have an adverse effect on the development of the cooperative movement. It was alternatively submitted that the said Circular has a statutory force and flavor at least under Section 79 of the Act. On the merits of the controversy, Mr. It was alternatively submitted that the said Circular has a statutory force and flavor at least under Section 79 of the Act. On the merits of the controversy, Mr. Borkar submitted that the earlier order of the Minister dated 22.09.2008 having been set aside, the same could not have been confirmed by the present Minister. It was further submitted that the directions contained in the Judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court to apply mind to the circular dated 05.03.2007 have not been adhered to and that the Minister has not applied his mind to the said circular. 17. Referring to the first Judgment of the Minister, it was submitted that the consideration on the merits of the controversy was flawed on account of erroneous consideration of certain documents by the Minister. Mr. Borkar, therefore, prayed for allowing both the Writ Petitions. 18. On the other hand, Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, learned Additional Government Pleader supported the impugned orders passed by the Minister. He submitted that the policy decision of the State Government as contemplated by the proviso to Section 4 is one contained in G.R. dated 7th February, 2001. He submitted that the Circular issued by the Commissioner on 05.03.2007 was not a policy decision of the State Government and though it binds the subordinate registering officers, it does not bind the State Government. According to Mr. Nargolkar what the Circular dated 05.03.2007 does is to direct the subordinate registering authorities not to forward the proposals for fresh registration permission for new multipurpose cooperative societies to the Office of the Commissioner. It is submitted that the discretion conferred on the Registration Authority by Section 4 cannot be taken away by the Circular dated 05th March, 2007 and if the State Government wants to frame any guidelines for registration, such guidelines can be framed by issuing a Government Resolution containing a policy set out as has been done by issuing G.R. dated 07.02.2001. Meeting criticism of Mr. Borker that the Hon’ble Minister has confirmed and continued orders dated 22.09.2008 which were already set aside by this Court, Mr. Nargolkar submitted that instead of reproducing the reasons in the earlier Judgments dated 22.09.2008; for the sake of convenience, the Hon’ble Minister has reenumerated the same reasons by reference and there is nothing illegal in adopting such procedure. 19. Mr. Dani apart from supporting the submission of Mr. Nargolkar submitted that instead of reproducing the reasons in the earlier Judgments dated 22.09.2008; for the sake of convenience, the Hon’ble Minister has reenumerated the same reasons by reference and there is nothing illegal in adopting such procedure. 19. Mr. Dani apart from supporting the submission of Mr. Nargolkar submitted that the Respondent No.1 Societies have been duly registered and even admitted as members of the D.C.C. Bank, Kolhapur. He submitted that the Circular dated 5th March, 2007 contained a blanket prohibition against registration and cannot be equated with a policy decision as contemplated by provisions of Section 4 of the Act. CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSOINS: 20. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the entire record of both the petitions as also the Affidavits filed on behalf of the State Government. 21. It is difficult to accept the contention of Mr. Borkar that the Circular dated 05.03.2007 is a policy decision of the State Government as contemplated by proviso to Section 4. A policy decision of the State Government can only be in the form of a Government Resolution issued by the order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra. The Circular has been issued on the basis of the decision taken in the meeting of the SLIC held on 11th January, 2007 presided over by the Principal Secretary of the concerned Department. However, neither the SLIC nor the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies are empowered to take any policy decision on behalf of the State Government. Hence, the said Circular dated 05.03.2007 cannot be considered to be a policy decision as contemplated by proviso to Section 4. 22. The State Government has already taken a policy decision as contained in G.R. dated 07.02.2001 and in the Affidavits which are filed on behalf of the State Government there is no statement that this policy decision has been subsequently varied or modified. In fact even during the course of the submissions made before me, Mr. Nargolkar, learned Addl. G.P. reiterates that the policy decision dated 07.02.2001 stands even today. The said G.R. dated 07.02.2001 merely regulates the registration of new multipurpose cooperative societies and it does not prohibit such registration. It lays down guidelines and parameters on compliance of which alone a new society can be registered. 23. Nargolkar, learned Addl. G.P. reiterates that the policy decision dated 07.02.2001 stands even today. The said G.R. dated 07.02.2001 merely regulates the registration of new multipurpose cooperative societies and it does not prohibit such registration. It lays down guidelines and parameters on compliance of which alone a new society can be registered. 23. In my opinion, the Respondents are justified in their submissions that the Circular dated 05.03.2007 issued by the Commissioner does not override the policy decision dated 07.02.2001. I may hasten to add that I may not be treated to have expressed opinion that the State Government cannot take policy decision on the basis of tripartite MOU. However, as a matter of fact there is no policy decision in the form of G.R. regarding the complete stoppage of registration of the multipurpose cooperative credit societies which is shown to have been taken by the State Government. In the absence of any such subsequent policy decision, the original policy decision contained in the G.R. dated 07.02.2001 will continue to operate and hold the field. Hence, the first contention of Mr. Borkar cannot be accepted and fails. 24. The next submission of Mr. Borkar that in any case the Circular dated 5th March, 2007 issued by the Commissioner amounts to a recognition by the State Government that registration of a new multipurpose credit society will be contrary to the cooperative principles can also not be accepted. Cooperative principles are well known and if the State Government desires to declare as to what action would be contrary to the cooperative principles, it is for the State Government to take such a decision. Mere Circular issued by the Commissioner cannot be considered to be a decision of the State Government to hold that the registration of the new multipurpose cooperative societies would be contrary to the cooperative principles. In any case, whether registration of a new society will be detrimental to the health of existing society and the cooperative movement in a particular village is a matter which has to be decided by the Registering Authority and in the absence of any other policy guidelines in that behalf, it is not possible to accept the contention of Mr. Borkar in that regard. 25. Borkar in that regard. 25. Thus the Hon’ble Minister was perfectly justified in holding that the Circular dated 05.03.2007 issued by the Commissioner will not be a hurdle in the way of registration of the Respondent No.2 Society. However, the Hon’ble Minister has not independently discussed merits and demerits of registration of the Respondent No.1 Society. Hon’ble Minister has sought to confirm the earlier Judgments and Orders dated 22.09.2008 which could not have been done for the simple reason that the said Judgments and Orders had been set aside in their entirety by this Court. The order passed by this court had attained finality and the Hon’ble Minister could not have confirmed the Judgment which is set aside by this Court. On this count alone the impugned Judgments and Orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. 26. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the registration proposal of the Respondent No. 1 Society had been summarily rejected by the Registration Authority on the basis of the Circular dated 05.03.2007 and the Appeals filed under section 152 were also dismissed on the same ground. Thus the original Authority, namely, Registration Authority has not gone into questions of viability of Respondent No.1 Society, area of various crops which are under cultivations in the respective villages and numbers of the existing societies with the quantum of credit business of the existing societies, financial health of the existing societies and other relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration under the G.R. dated 07.02.2011. Once the Minister comes to the conclusion that the Circular dated 05.03.2007 was not a blanket bar to the registration of the new societies, the logical corollary ought to have been to set aside the orders of the Assistant Registrar and Divisional Assistant Registrar and remand the matters back to the First Authority, namely, the Assistant Registrar. Precisely this has not been done by the Hon’ble Minister. It is, therefore, difficult to sustain the operative order passed by the Hon’ble Minister even though one of the conclusions of the Hon’ble Minister that the Circular dated 05.03.2007 is not a hurdle in the way of registration of a new society will have to be and is hereby upheld. Precisely this has not been done by the Hon’ble Minister. It is, therefore, difficult to sustain the operative order passed by the Hon’ble Minister even though one of the conclusions of the Hon’ble Minister that the Circular dated 05.03.2007 is not a hurdle in the way of registration of a new society will have to be and is hereby upheld. However, for consideration of various factors referred to in this paragraph, it is necessary to remand the proceedings to the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Bhudargad for denovo fresh enquiry. 27. Hence, I pass the following order. i. The impugned Judgments and Orders dated 30th March, 2011 passed in Revision Application No. 247 of 2008 and 15th March, 2011 passed in Revision Application No. 246 of 2008 to the extent that they allowed the Revision Applications in entirety, purporting to confirm the earlier Judgments and Orders dated 22.09.2008 are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the finding of the Hon’ble Minister of State for Cooperation that the Circular dated 05th March, 2007 does not constitute a policy decision under section 4 of the MCS Act, 1960 and that the said Circular will not be a hurdle in the way of registration of new multipurpose cooperative societies is upheld. ii. The Applications filed by the Respondent No.1 for registration are remanded back to the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Bhudargad for de novo enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the MCS Act, 1960 and MCS Rules 1961 and the observations made in paragraph 26 of this Judgment and policy guidelines contained in the Government Resolution dated 07.02.2001. iii. It is directed that the Assistant Registrar shall grant adequate opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 in both the Petitions to advance their respective submissions and to file documents in support of their respective pleas and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on or before 31st March, 2012. iv. All rival contentions of the parties in that regard are kept open. v. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms in both the Petitions with no order as to costs.