Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Chandurkar M.N. Actg. C.J. and Pendse M.L. J.
Ghatageppa Parreppa Mugeri and others..... Petitioners.
Versus
M. R. Naik and others ..... Respondents.
Writ Petition No79 of 1983 decided on 8–7-1983.
Advocate Appeared:
For petitioners-Dr. B. R. Naik with Y. R. Naik.
For respondents Nos. 1 and 6 to 8-M.B. Mehere, Asstt. Govt. Pleader.
For respondents Nos. 3 and 4-Bhimrao N. Naik.
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - MAHARASHTRA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1960 - SECTION 77A - APPOINTMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - NOTICE TO MEMBERS - IMMEDIATE ACTION - ELECTION - FAILURE TO ELECT - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged an order passed under section 77A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kolhapur, dissolving the Managing Committee of the Chandgad Taluka Shetkari Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh, Ltd., Turkewadi, and appointing an Administrator to conduct the affairs of the Society.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Assistant Registrar's order was illegal and liable to be quashed as it was not supported by any of the provisions of section 77A on the facts of the case and the requirements of the first proviso to section 77A(1) had not been complied with.
Issues: 1. Whether the Assistant Registrar was justified in treating the case as one necessitating immediate action and dispensing with the requirement of notice inviting objections under the first proviso to section 77A(1)? 2. Whether the conditions precedent for the exercise of powers under section 77A(1)(b) were satisfied in the present case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Assistant Registrar was not justified in treating the case as one necessitating immediate action as there was no evidence to show why immediate action was necessary, especially when the members of the duly elected managing committee could have continued in office even though their period of office had expired under section 73G(2) of the Act. 2. The court held that the conditions precedent for the exercise of powers under section 77A(1)(b) were not satisfied in the present case as there was no election held and the rejection of nomination papers could not be equated with the holding of an election.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order dated 24th December 1982 and restored the Managing Committee from which the Administrator took charge back to its office.
2. For a proper appreciation of the circumstances which, according to the Assistant Registrar, led him to exercise his powers of appointment of an Administrator, it is necessary to state a few facts. Admittedly, the period of five years for which the Managing Committee was elected on 14th October 1977 had already expired. Fresh elections were, therefore, to be held and an election programme was, therefore, published by the Collector, because the Society is a specified society. In accordance with this programme, the scrutiny of nomination papers was to be held on 10th December 1982 and, if necessary, after the publication of the final list of candidates on 20th December 1982, the poll was to be taken on 5th January 1983. Out of the nomination papers received, 14 nominations were received for 6 seats from A class members and 8 nominations were received for 3 seats from B class members. Respondent No. 7 was the Returning Officer for the election. He is the Deputy Collector of Gadhinglaj. Now, all these nomi-nation papers had been rejected by the Returning Officer. The present respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had also challenged the electoral rolls in Writ Petition No. 3596 of 1982. In that petition, a stay of further proceedings according to the notified programme of election was granted on 9th December 1982. We are not in this petition concerned with the grievance which is made by the petitioners that notwithstanding the stay of the process of election, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 did not intimate to the Returning Officer that the election process was stayed when the scrutiny of nominations took place on 10th December 1982.
3. It appears that 9 persons including respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had made a complaint to the Assistant Registrar making certain grievances against the members of the Managing Committee, the contents of which, according to the Assistant Registrar, were verified by him. The said com- plaint is not on record nor could it be produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader at the time of hearing and it is not possible for us, therefore, to speculate on the nature of the complaint. Admittedly the con- tents of that complaint were also not made available to the present peti- tioners at any stage. That complaint could not have been considered for making the impugned order. The impugned order refers to three circums- tances which were considered by the Assistant Registrar, which impelled him to make the impugned order. These three circumstances were :
(1) The period of office of the present Managing Committee had expired.
(2) There was no possibility in the immediate future of any elec- tions of the Managing Committee.
(3) The contents of the application dated 22nd December 1982 made by the members of the Society asking for appointment of an Administrator have been verified and found correct to a large extent.
4. The Assistant Registrar has treated the case as one in which immediate action was necessary as contemplated by the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 77A because, according to him, the Society had committed a default in respect of the by-laws relating to the holding of election. Having regard to the three circumstances, as already pointed out, the Assistant Registrar in exercise of his powers under section 77A (1
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
