SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(Bom) 154

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
V.A. Mohta A.A. Desai, JJ.
Keshaorao Narayanrao Patil .... Petitioner.
Versus
District Deputy Registrar others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 2245 of 1986, decided on 16/21-4-87.
Advocates appeared :
C.G. Madholkar, for petitioner.
G.D. Patil, A.G.P. and K.H. Deshpande, for responder Nos. 1 2.
R.B. Pendharkar, for Interveners.
M.N. Ingle P.C. Palshikar, for Interveners

Headnote:Order VI Rule 17-Application for amendment tiled long after hearing for addition of new party Allegations being factual cannot be permitted to be raised at such a later stage-Application rejected.

       Note to be taken of the application for amendment filed on 3rd April, 1987, long alter hearing commenced on 25th March, 1987. By this amendment, the State of Maharashlra is sought to be added as new respondent on the ground of mala fides of Minister for State for Co-operation. Allegations are factual and cannot be permitted to be raised at such a late stage. Grant of amendment by addition of new party in this matter which is being disposed of only on pure question of law, will even otherwise be unnecessary and not the interest of justice. The same is, therefore rejected.

       Sections 78 and 73-FF (As amended by Act 20 of 1986-Passing of order of removal as required under the provisions of Section 78 in the matter of incurring disqualification under Section 73 FF (1) is mandatory and cessation of membership under Section 73 FF (2) is not automatic.

       Held, that, the passing of order of removal as required under the provisions of Section 78 in the matter of incurring disqualification under Section 73 FF (1) is mandatory and the cessation of membership under Section 73 (FF) (2) is not automatic. As the said provisions has not been complied with, the assumption on the part of the Collector/Assistant Registrar that the petitioner has ceased to hold the office of the member of the Committee and was, therefore, was not entitled to a notice of the meeting was erroneous. The petitioner continues to be a member and also till order of removal as required under Section 73 is passed. In disposing of the petition only on this ground, it will not only be unnecessary but improper to adjudicate upon the various other points on merits, which can be raised before the District Deputy Registrar.

JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:---Maharashtra Act No. 20 of 1986 (brought into force with effect from 12-5-1986), the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (the Act) has been amended and section 73-FF has been added. It deals with the subject of disqualification for membership of the Committee. Sub-section (2) of section 73-FF mentions that A member who has incurred any disqualification under sub-section (1), shall cease to be a member of the Committee and his seat shall thereupon be deemed to be vacant." The principal point raised in this petition is whether such cessation takes place automatically or has to be preceded by a hearing and thereafter an order as required under section 78 of the Act dealing with the power of Registrar to remove a member, on the ground of incurring a disqualification.

2. The point arises against the following backdrop. Petitioner Keshaorao Patil, while he was holding the office of the President-Director of Vikas Khand Sahakari Shetki Kharedi Vikri Samiti Limited, Barshi Takli, had purchased goods on credit from the said society, between 23rd June, 1976 to 17th December, 1977. The Auditor reported these outstanding dues, on the basis of which inquiry under section 83 of the Act was started by the Sub-Divisional Assistant Registrar, in which a sum of Rs. 36,123.91 was found due. Show-Cause notice was issued. No payment was made and hence a dispute under section 91 was ordered to make a payment of Rs. 29,181/- vide order dated 12-2-1986. The petitioner carried an appeal before the Maharashtra State Appellate Court, which was pleased to grant the stay of operation of the order of Co-operative Court on 1-7-1986.

3. Election of the District Loan Committee of the Maharashtra State Land Development Bank Limited was scheduled. The petitioner filed nomination paper from Barshi-Takli Murtizapur Constituency. An objection was raised to the nomination paper that the petitioner had incurred disqualification within the meaning of section 73-FF(1)(c)(ii), and, therefore, was not eligible for being elected as a member of the Committee. Objection to the nomination paper was rejected on the ground that on that day the order of directing payment by the Co-operative Court was stayed by the Appellate Court. Thereafter the election was held on 22-10-1986, the petitioner was elected as one of the 7 delegates from the District. On 29-10-1986 the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Co-operative Appellate Court came to be dismissed and the stay granted on 1-7-1986 stood automatically vacated. Election of the Chairman of the District Loan Committee as contemplated under section 112-A was scheduled to be held on 12-11-1986 in the first meeting of the Committee. Notices for the same were issued by the Collector on 4-11-1986. The petitioner was not given such notice and hence he wrote a letter to the District Deputy Registrar and the Collector on 5-11-86, making a grievance and seeking information as to why no notice was issued to him. After some correspondence the Collector informed the petitioner that the District Deputy Registrar vide his confidential letter has informed the office of the Collector that the appeal before the Co-operative Appellate Court was dismissed on 29-10-1986 in view of which the petitioner had incurred disqualification and had ceased to be a member under section 73-FF(2).

4. These decisions are impugned in this petition. On 7-11-1986 notice before admission was issued by the Court. On 12-11-1986 ad interim order was issued, permitting the petitioner to participate and vote in the election meeting. The petitioner had made a statement that he would not contest the post of Chairman. The result of the election was to be declared only if there was a difference of two or more votes. On 21-11-1986 this petition was admitted and the result of the election was ordered to be declared and was made subject to the result of the petition. The result was declared Laxmikant Mahakal (respondent No. 3) defeated his




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top