SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Shri. Masaidevi Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Seva Sanstha Maryadit Warewadi – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4669 of 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) NO. 4090 of 2024) With Civil Appeal No. 4670 OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6551/2024) Civil Appeal No. 4671 OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6086/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4672 OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) 6262/2024, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4672 OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 10032/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6619/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6535/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6308/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 4808/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6324/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6499/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6493/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6065/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 4926/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 10030/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5423/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5008/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5862/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 9579/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6264/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6168/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6475/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5430/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6360/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5298/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 4929/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5062/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6274/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6621/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5598/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5341/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5385/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5345/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5315/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 7714/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 7722/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 10031/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6222/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5564/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5027/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5312/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 6275/2024), CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 5314/2024)
Decided on : 02-04-2025
JUDGMENT :
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J:-
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in the present appeals is to the common order dated 05.01.2024 in Writ Petition No. 8654/2023 and 42 other connected matters, whereby the High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed the petitions preferred by the respondent no. 6 herein and in other connected matters and set aside the orders passed by the State of Maharashtra directing registration of the appellant-societies.
3. For the sake of brevity and as the legal issue involved is the same, we are referring to the facts of the W.P. No. 8654 of 2023 resulting into SLP (C) No. 4090 of 2024. The factual background is that on 13.01.2023, the appellant-society herein filed an application to the Respondent-Assistant Registrar for getting permission for registration of proposed society as a new Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society (hereinafter ‘PACCS’), as well as for opening a bank account. A scrutiny was done by the Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter ‘Committee’) wherein the application filed by the appellant-society was rejected on 13.04.2023. The reasons given by the Committee for rejection of application are reproduced below:
2. The information as to whether the Promoters – members of the proposed society are the members of other existing societies or not, has not been verified and submitted.
3. The Chief Promoter has not verified and ascertained crop-wise cultivated area of the Promoters – members in the proposed society as mentioned in the Crops Sowing Register.
4. The Kolhapur District Central Co- operative Bank has not given undertaking in respect of providing loan as per it’s Crop-Loan Policy, to the Promoters – members of the proposed society or has not annexed the Undertaking to the effect that apart from the Kolhapur District Central Co-operative Bank, other Nationalised Banks or other Financial Institutions are going to provide loan to the proposed society.
5. The existing Credit Co-operative Society for the Revenue village of the proposed Society, has not issued No- objection certificate to the proposed Society for registration.
6. The existing Society has not submitted information about member- wise loans provided to the members to be transferred to the proposed Society.
7. The extracts of entries from the Crops Sowing Register and 7/12 extract in respect of the lands of the Promoters – members included in the Registration Proposal, have not been annexed to the Proposal for Registration. Therefore, the probable distribution of loan proposed by the Society cannot be ascertained.
8. The Chief Promoter has not submitted alongwith the proposal, the information as to whether the Promoters – members to be included in the proposed society are included in other existing society or not.
9. The self-explanatory opinion of the Divisional Joint Registrar, District Deputy Registrar and Taluka Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kolhapur, as to whether said society shall be financially viable after registration or not has not been submitted.
10. The Chief Promoter of the proposed Society, on the basis of the certificate issued by the Gaon Kamgar Talathi, has certified that agricultural loan of the approximate amount of more than Rs.150.00 lakhs will be provided however, he has not enclosed with the proposal, the documents in support of providing the said loan and the documents for verification thereof and therefore, it cannot be ascertained that after registration, the proposed society will be able to provide loan of the amount of more than Rs.150.00 lakhs.
11. The loan provided by the existing society within the area of operation of the proposed society is less than the amount of Rs.150.00 lakhs and therefore, existing society itself is not financially viable. Therefore, it would not
Economic viability is a prerequisite for the registration of co-operative societies, and decisions contrary to established guidelines are unsustainable.
A competing co-operative society lacks locus standi to challenge another's registration unless it suffers a legal wrong, underscoring the principle that competition must be encouraged.
Deregistration under Section 21A of the Act can only be based on specified statutory grounds and not on extraneous considerations. The right to form association cannot be jeopardized based on non-sta....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 4 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, particularly the proviso, to determine the eligibility for registra....
A registration order under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act must be reasoned to ensure accountability and compliance with statutory requirements, enabling effective judicial review.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Maharashtra State Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Trib....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.