High Court
Legal Reasoning
904 WP 7341-2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD904 WRIT PETITION NO. 7341 OF 2023VISHWANATH GUNDAPPA KARLEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARYAND OTHERS...Mr. Pravin B. Rakhunde – Advocate for PetitionerMs. D.S. Jape – AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5Mr.M.S. Karad h/f. Mr.S.S. Thombre – Advocate for Respondent No.8…. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATE : 18th DECEMBER, 2024PER COURT : 1.Heard the parties.2.The petitioner in this case is the person sold his land to oneKishor Tukaram Kadam i.e. father of respondent Nos.7-a to 7-c andhouse property to respondent No.8. Thereafter, he filed a complaintbefore the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies,Osmanabad under the Money Lenders Act raising grievance that thesale transaction was in fact under security towards loan taken by thepetitioner. In the said case, respondent No. 8 filed an applicationgiving direction to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies,Tulajpur to make an enquiry. However, the enquiry was notconducted personally but was conducted by Class–I Officer from thePooja Kale1/5 904 WP 7341-2023office of Assistant Registrar, Tq. Tuljapur. It was thus submittedthat, the direction or the order passed by the D.D.R. based on theenquiry report by Cooperative Officer Class–I is without authority.3.The learned D.D.R. rejected said application stating that theClass–I Officer of Cooperative Society department was havingauthority as per the government order and rejected the application.The said order was challenged by respondent No.8 by filing an appealbefore the Divisional Joint Department, Latur. The Divisional JointDepartment held that, no appeal is maintainable under Section 18(4)of the Act, as the order passed by the learned D.D.R. was aninterlocutory order and not a final order.4.Being aggrieved by this order passed by the Divisional JointRegistrar, respondent No.8 preferred a revision before theCommissioner Cooperative Societies and Registrar General, Pune. Inthe revision the regional authority allowed the revision and set asidethe order passed by the District Deputy Registrar Cooperative societydated 31.01.2017.5.The petitioner thus aggrieved by this order has approached thisCourt by filing this writ petition. The petitioner raised a ground that,when the Appellate Authority has rightly held that, the appeal is notPooja Kale2/5
Legal Reasoning
904 WP 7341-2023maintainable still the authority entertained the revision applicationagainst that order. Secondly, the main appeal itself is notmaintainable, there was no question of revision being maintainable.Third ground raised is that, in fact the government by notificationdated 13th July, 2016 has very much authorised even Class–I Officerworking in the office of District Deputy Registrar, Assistant Registrarof Class–I Officer of Class–II Officer of Cooperative Department. Inview of this, an enquiry was rightly conducted by a personauthorised. In this case the conduct of the Class–I from the office ofAssistant Registrar and thus, no illegality is committed andsubmitted the report of the said authority by the said officer.6.Learned Counsel for respondent No.8 vehemently opposes thepetition. He submits that, the revision was maintainable in view ofSection 9 of the Act. The Registrar General has power to examine therecord of an enquiry of proceeding of any matter where the order hasbeen passed or decision has been given. Section 9 is reproducedhere:Section 9 – Registration.(1) If the Registrar is satisfied that a proposed society hascomplied with the provisions of this Act and the rules, [or anyother law for the time being in force, or policy directives issuedby the State Government under section 4] [These words andPooja Kale3/5 904 WP 7341-2023figures were inserted by Maharashtra 20 of 1986, 6(a)(i)] andthat its proposed bye-laws are not contrary to this Act or to therules, he [shall, within two months] [These words weresubstituted for the words 'may, within six months,' byMaharashtra 20 of 1986, Section 6(a)(ii).], from the date ofreceipt of the application register the society and its bye-laws.(2) Where there is a failure on the part of the Registrar todispose of suet application within the period aforesaid, theRegistrar shall, within a period of fifteen days from the date ofexpiration of that period refer the application to the next higherofficer and where the Registrar himself is the registering officer,to the State Government, who or which, as the case may be,shall dispose of the application within two months from thedate of its receipt and on the failure of such higher officer orthe State Government, as the case may be, to dispose of theapplication within that period, the society and its bye-lawsshall be deemed to have been registered [and thereafter theRegistrar shall issue a certificate of registration under his sealand signature within a period of fifteen days] [Sub-section (2)was substituted for the original by Maharashtra 20 of 1986,Section 6(b)](3) Where the Registrar refuses to register a proposed society,he shall forthwith communicate his decision, with the reasonstherefor, to the person making the application and if there bemore than one to the person who has signed first therein.(4) The Registrar shall maintain a register of all societiesregistered, or deemed to be registered, under this Act.7.He thus submits any order passed by the authorities can bechallenged and there is no jurisdictional error committed by theRegistrar General. There is no mention of Class–I Officers from theoffice of District Deputy Registrar and from the Assistant Registrar.8.Learned A.G.P. submits that, in view of the application datedPooja Kale4/5
Decision
904 WP 7341-202313th July, 2016 the Class–I Officer from the Assistant Registrar Officeand Class–II Officer from the Cooperative Department are authorisedto carry out inspection under Section 16. In view of this the enquiry/investigation by Class–I Officer was clearly authoried to conductinspection and prays for appropriate order.9.Considering above, for the present this Court finds that, theOfficer who conducted investigation had a power to do so in view ofnotification dated 13th July, 2016 that the Officer of Class–I from theoffice of Class–I Deputy Registrar/Assistant Registrar or the Officergrade – II of Cooperative Societies are authorised to exercise powersunder Section 16 of the Act. This Court thus finds the order passedby the Registrar General is clearly against the notification dated 13thJuly, 2016. He has committed illegality in setting aside the order ofinvestigation/inspection report prepared by the Class–I Officer fromthe office District Deputy Registrar.10.Consider above the writ petition stands allowed in terms ofprayer clauses ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’.11.No order as to costs. [ KISHORE C. SANT, J. ]Pooja Kale5/5