The Registrar must give a hearing to the parties before deciding on the existence or non-existence of a dispute under section 93(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

Headnote:
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - DISPUTE - JURISDICTION - CO-OPERATIVE COURT - REGISTRAR - SATISFACTION - HEARING - RULES - INTERPRETATION - FINALITY OF DECISION - JUDICIAL REVIEW - CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1960 - SECTION 91, 93, 152(4) - MAHARASHTRA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES, 1961 - RULE 75, 76.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner challenged the order of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bombay, deciding that the dispute raised by respondent No. 1 is a dispute within the meaning of section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
Finding of the Court:

1. The Registrar must give a hearing to the parties before any decision on the existence or non-existence of the dispute is given under section 93(1) of the Act. 2. The deletion of sub-section (2) of section 91 of the Act has not affected the nature of the powers exercised by the Registrar under section 93(1) of the Act. 3. The decision given by the Registrar, under which a reference of a dispute is made to the Co-operative Court, is binding upon the Co-operative Court which cannot question the same because that decision is made final by the other provisions of the Act. 4. The requirement mentioned in Hingorani's case that before deciding the question under section 93(1) as to whether a dispute is a dispute within the meaning of section 91 hearing must be given to the parties is still good law and has not been affected in any manner by the deletion of sub-section (2) of section 91 of the Act. 5. It will be an improper exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Registrar to pass an order in a proforma without giving reasons therefore as required by Rule 76 of the Rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the Registrar is required to give a hearing to the parties before deciding on the existence or non-existence of a dispute under section 93(1) of the Act? 2. Whether the deletion of sub-section (2) of section 91 of the Act has affected the nature of the powers exercised by the Registrar under section 93(1) of the Act? 3. Whether the decision given by the Registrar, under which a reference of a dispute is made to the Co-operative Court, is binding upon the Co-operative Court? 4. Whether the requirement mentioned in Hingorani's case that before deciding the question under section 93(1) as to whether a dispute is a dispute within the meaning of section 91 hearing must be given to the parties is still good law? 5. Whether it is an improper exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Registrar to pass an order in a proforma without giving reasons therefore as required by Rule 76 of the Rules?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of the Act and the Rules clearly indicate that the Registrar must give a hearing to the parties before deciding on the existence or non-existence of a dispute under section 93(1) of the Act. 2. The deletion of sub-section (2) of section 91 of the Act has not affected the nature of the powers exercised by the Registrar under section 93(1) of the Act, as the duty to give hearing to the parties is not dispensed with by the deletion of sub-section (2). 3. The decision given by the Registrar, under which a reference of a dispute is made to the Co-operative Court, is binding upon the Co-operative Court, as the finality of the decision is preserved by the other provisions in the Act, such as section 152(4). 4. The requirement mentioned in Hingorani's case that before deciding the question under section 93(1) as to whether a dispute is a dispute within the meaning of section 91 hearing must be given to the parties is still good law, as the deletion of sub-section (2) of section 91 of the Act has not affected the interpretation of section 93(1) given by the Court in Hingorani's case. 5. It is an improper exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Registrar to pass an order in a proforma without giving reasons therefore as required by Rule 76 of the Rules.
Final Decision: The order of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bombay, deciding that the dispute raised by respondent No. 1 is a dispute within the meaning of section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, was set aside. The proceedings in the said case before the Co-operative Court were quashed. The Assistant Registrar was free to decide the question afresh after hearing the parties.

JUDGMENT - R.A. JAHAGIRDAR, J.:---This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeks to challenge the order of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies at Bombay by which he decided that the dispute raised by respondent No. 1 is a dispute within the meaning of section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as "the Societies Act." The Assistant Registrar who gave that decision on 13th of May, 1981 is jointed as the third respondent in this petition while the Third Co-operative Court established under section 91-A of the Societies Act has been joined as the fourth respondent. The second respondent in the petition is a member of the first respondent society and it is he who, according to the allegations made in the dispute, inducted the petitioner in one of the flat in the society.

2. It is not necessary for me to refer to the details of the dispute between the parties because the challenge in this petition is confined to the manner in which the order of 13th May, 1981 has been passed by the third respondent. The petitioner contends that the third respondent, namely the Assistant Registrar, has not given him a hearing before he passed the impugned order; secondly he has passed the aforesaid order mechanically without application of mind as can be seen from the cancellation of certain words in a proforma order and insertion of certain figures in the said proforma order. The question that has to be primarily decided in this petition is whether any party to a dispute arising under section 91 of the Societies. Act is entitled to be heard before the Registrar or the Assistant Registrar record his satisfaction under section 93(1) of the Societies Act as to the existence or non-existence of a dispute, One may, therefore, go straightway to the relevant provisions of the Act. I will make a brief reference to the authorities on which the learned Advocates appearing before me have relied after the relevant provisions under the Act, which are according to me quite clear, are examined.

3. Section 91 of the Act mentions that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute of the type mentioned therein can be referred by any of the parties, to the dispute to the Registrar if both the parties thereto are one or the other of the several categories of persons mentioned in sub-section (1). It is not necessary to refer to the same. Section 91(1), therefore, mentions the reference of a dispute by a party to the Registrar. The next step that takes place after such reference is made to the Registrar is to be found in section 93(1) which is in the following terms :---

"If the Registrar is satisfied that any matter referred to him or brought to his notice is a dispute within the meaning of section 91, the Registrar shall, subject to the rules, decide the dispute himself, or refer it for disposal to a Co-operative Court."

It is thus clear that before the matter is taken up by the Registrar for adjudication or is referred by him for disposal to a Co-operative Court, a decision that the dispute referred to him is a dispute within the meaning of section 91 must be given by the Registrar. Such a decision is the sine qua non of any adjudication that may take place under the other provisions of the Act. The adjudication takes place at the hands of the Registrar himself or at the hands of one of the Co-operative Courts established by the State Government under section 91-A of the Act, which provides that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Co-operative courts for the adjudication of disputes referred to the Registrar under section 91 or section 105 or other provisions of the Act. The jurisdiction of a Co-operative Court to adjudicate upon a dispute is derived directly from the reference made to it for disposal of dispute by the Registrar under section 93(1) of the Act. There is no provision in the en

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis