PETITION NO. 3830 OF 2010 (Itiadoh Jalashay Matsya Vyavasaya Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Patidas Abhiman Kolhe) Office Notes & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Adjournment is being sought by Shri Tambde, learned counsel for the petitioner for joining the Administrator of the Society as party. The society itself is petitioner. This Court has given interim relief on
16.08.2010 and reportedly Administrator has been appointed by the Society on 12.08.2010. I do not find any justification in the request being made. Heard Shri Tambde, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sambre, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri Fulzele, learned AGP for respondents No. 2 and 3. Shri Tambde, learned counsel points out that by order dated 27.10.2009, the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies exercised powers not available to him under Section 79(2) of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and directed the petitioner – society to pay the amount to Sanjay Nashine and others. This direction has been mechanically upheld by the appellate authority in the impugned order dated 14.05.2010. 2 Shri Fulzele, learned AGP points out that there is no direction as such but the society has been asked to take decision as per records with it. It is further pointed out that Sanjay Nashine has not been joined party before the appellate authority or before this Court. Shri Sambre, learned counsel for respondent No.1 – Secretary for the petitioner society has also supported the impugned order passed by Respondent No.3. The order of Assistant Registrar dated
27.10.2009 shows that the petitioner – society was only asked to look into its audit reports and accounts and to take appropriate decision about amounts payable to Sanjay Nashine and others. If the petitioner – society is viewing it as direction and wanted to contend that such direction could not have been issued, Sanjay Nashine ought to have been joined as party before the appellate authority i.e. Respondent No. 3. It is apparent that Sanjay Nashine was heard by the Assistant Registrar and during hearing he had stated that he has to recover an amount of Rs.1.06 lakh and expressed readiness and willingness to take it in suitable installments. Hence, the question whether such direction can be issued or not could have been raised only in the presence of said Sanjay Nashine and cannot be decided by the appellate authority or by this Court in his absence. As Sanjay Nashine is not joined as party even before this Court, the contention of Shri Tambde, learned counsel cannot be looked into in present matter. 3 The said contention is kept open for consideration at appropriate stage. Writ Petition is rejected. However,
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.