Sahakari (Vikas) Seva Sanstha & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Mr. S.S. Patwardhan, for Petitioners. Mr Patel, AGP for the Respondent Nos 1 to 4. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. DATED: 22nd July, 2010 P.C.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of learned counsel.

Heard Mr. S. S. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Patel, AGP for respondent Nos 1 to 4,.

The above petition challenges the order passed by the Hon’ble Minister of the State for Co-operation, Marketing, Textile u/s 154 of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short called as “the said Act”). By the said order, the registration of the respondent No.1 Society is granted u/s 4 of the said Act.

The registration of Co-Operative Societies, is governed by section 4 and section 9 of the said Act and the relevant policy of the Government as laid down in the Government resolution dated 2 WP3552OF09.sxw

7.2.2001. Under this policy, Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society in a revenue village can be registered provided the turnover of the existing Vikas Karyakari Society is minimum 50 lacs of rupees and the turnover of the proposed society also should be minimum 50 lacks of rupees. The Hon’ble Minister on the basis of this policy and on individual merits of the cases, granted registration of the respondent No.1 Society as stated above.

Mr. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while granting registration to the Respondent No.5 Society, Hon’ble Minister ignored /not considered the Government Policy contained in a circular issued by the Commissioner of Co- operation on 5th March,2007. He submitted that the said circular prohibit registration of new Vikas Karyakari Society. Mr. Patwardhan, also pointed out that initially respondent No.4 preferred an application for registration before the Assistant Registrar and this application came to be rejected relying on the guidelines given in the circular dated 5.3.2007. In some cases the Revision is directly before Hon’ble Minister, bypassing the remedy of appeal u/s 152 of the Act and in some cases after availing the remedy u/s 152, Revision u/s 154 is filed. He submitted that the revision u/s 154 without exhausting remedy under section 152 is not maintainable.

Mr. Patel, learned AGP has filed affidavit of Principal 3 WP3552OF09.sxw Secretary, of Co-Opertive Societies, disclosing stand of the Government. However, I find the stand of the Government as vague as possible.

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.5’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 co-operation 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.