Kumbhargaon Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Seva Society Ltd. vs Assistant Registrar, Co-op. Societies, Patan and others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1992 Supreme(Bom) 575

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
B.N. Srikrishna, J.,
Kumbhargaon Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Seva Society Ltd. ...Petitioner.
Versus
Assistant Registrar, Co-op. Societies, Patan and others ...Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 4272 of 1992, decided on 12-11-1992.
Advocates appeared :
S.V. Pitre for V.B. Rajure, for the petitioner.
Vijay Patil, for respondent No. 4
V.V.N. D’Gama, A.G.P., for respondents 1 to 3.

Headnote:Articles 226 and 227.
       See Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
       Articles 226 and 227-Writ petition-Maintainability of.
       Availability of alternative remedy of statutory appeal-Order of Registrar showing abduction of his statutory functions and acting at behest of Government-Appeal to Registrar would be from Caesar to Casear-No useful purpose to be served on directing petitioner to move appeal to Registrar in the matter. Better course to be to set aside order in writ petition with necessary directions to Assistant Registrar to act as per law.
       Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9-Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9-Registering Societies-Pre-requisites for-Nature of Duties of Registrar in registering societies.
       Consequences of order of Registrar for registration or refusal of registration-Order showing abdication of statutory functions and acting at behest of Government. Effect.
       It is trite law that an officer of State, who has been invested with administrative/quasi judicial functions, has to discharge them independently, on the basis of the material placed on record and after giving an opportunity for hearing to the parties likely to be effected by his order. The Registrar, or his delegatee, the Assistant Registrar, as in the instant case, is, without doubt, discharging administrative, if not quasijudicial functions under the statute when he acts as the Registering Authority. Considering the serious consequences which has order of registration or refusal of registration would entail, it is expected that the responsibility invested in the Registering Authority is discharged consistently with principles of natural justice.
       It is obvious that the Governments order was one of the factors which influenced the Assistant Registrar in arriving at his impugned order. Held, that the Assistant Registrar has, in passing the impugned order, abdicated his statutory functions and acted at the behest of the Government, as if he was obliged to follow a directive issued by the Government. That such is not the situation in law. The Assistant Registrar is required to decide the matter by completely ignoring any order issued to him in this behalf by the Government.
       It was only after the Assistant Registrars order that the petitioner realized that the Government order was also a factor which influenced the Assistant Registrar. In these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by directing the petitioner to move an appeal in the matter. The better course would be to set aside the impugned order, and specifically direct the Assistant Registrar to decide the matter purely in accordance with the material on record and on application of the relevant provisions of law, by completely ignoring the so-called order issued to him by the Government, and very dutifully transmitted to him by his superior officer, the Deputy Registrar.

JUDGMENT - B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.:---Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents through respective advocates waive service. By consent rule deemed to be on today's board for final hearing, called out and heard.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns an Order of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Patan, dated 19th August, 1992, by which the fourth respondent has been granted registration as a multi-purpose co-operative society.

3. The petitioner is a registered multi-purpose co-operative society, and is carrying on its business within the area of village Kumbhargaon, Taluka Patan, District Satara.

4. Sections 3 to 11 of The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, provide a detailed machinery for registration of different kinds of societies under the Act. Section 4 indicates the types of societies which are entitled to registration under the Act. Section 6 lays down the condition for registration of a society. Under section 8, the proposed society is required to apply to the Registrar in the prescribed form, accompanied by prescribed number of copies of the proposed by-laws and make payment of the prescribed registration fees. Section 9 provides that, if the Registrar is satisfied that the proposed society has complied with the provisions of the Act and the Rules or any other law for the time being in force or policy directives issued by the State Government under section 4, and that the proposed by-laws of the applying society are not contrary to the Act or the Rules, then the Registrar shall register the society and its by-laws within a period of two months from the date of the application. If no such registration is made, then, within a period of 15 days from the date of expiration of the time limit, the Registrar or the Registering Officer, in case it is not the Registrar, is required to refer the application to the next higher officer or the State Government, as the case may be, for appropriate action and disposal according to law. Section 11 provides for the various inquiries which the Registering Officer has to undertake before he grants registration of the society.

5. In the instant case, the power of the Registrar has been delegated to the Assistant Registrar, and he was exercising the powers of the Registrar under section 8. By a judgment of this Court in (Sathe Vividh Karyakari Seva Society (Proposed) Ltd. v. Bhairvanath Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Seva Society Ltd. and others)1, decision dated 21st April, 1989 in Writ Petition No. 803 of 1989 decided by Pratap Kolse-Patil, JJ., after a careful analysis of the applicable statutory provisions, it has been held, inter alia, that orders under sections 4 to 9 of the Act vitally affect the rights and interests of the parties, and that the authorities seized of the proceedings must, therefore, before deciding the same, issue notices, and give opportunities, to all concerned and affected parties, and, after hearing them, pass a speaking order with reasons disclosed in support thereof.

6. It is trite law that an officer of State, who has been invested with administrative/quasi-judicial functions, has to discharge them independently, on the basis of the material placed on record and after giving an opportunity for hearing to the parties likely to be affected by his order. The Registrar, or his delegatee, the Assistant Registrar, as in the instant case, is, without doubt, discharging administrative, if not quasi-judicial, functions under the statute when he acts as the Registering Authority. Considering the serious consequences which his order of registration or refusal of registration would entail, it is expected that the responsibility invested in the Registering Authority is discharged consistently with principles of natural justice.

7. What is surprising in the present case is that, by a letter/order dated 5th June, 1992 (in subsequent orders, the date is erroneously referred to as 6-6-1992) issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Co-oper

Click Here to Read the rest of this document