1998 Supreme(Bom) 558

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
N.P. Chapalgaonker B.H. Marlapalle, JJ.
Raosaheb s/o Babasaheb Kakade ..... Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 782 of 1998, decided on 21-9-1998.
Advocate appeared :
N.L. Jadhav, for the petitioner.
K.B. Chaudhari, A.G.P., for respondent No. 1.
H.K. Mundhe, for the respondent No. 2.
C.V. Thombre, for respondent No. 3.

Headnote:Maharashfra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samities Acf, 1962

       Section 111(3)-Confirmation of minutes of earlier meeting-Purpose-While confirming minutes of earlier meeting standing committee cannot delete resolution passed in earlier meeting-Confirmation of minutes is not an opportunity to reconsider-It is merely a verification whether facts have correctly been recorded.-Confirmation of the minutes, as is understood "in the law of meetings, is a verification of the facts as to what actually happened in the last meeting. Whether, the resolutions passed have been correctly recorded; where it is a practice to record the gist of the discussion then whether the discussion is rightly recorded and while confirming the minutes of the earlier meeting, the presiding authority shall read out the minutes and will ask the members whether this is the that account of the happenings at the last meeting. Confirmation is not an opportunity for reconsideration even to the same body. Thus, confirmation of the minutes of an earlier meeting is a declaration that the minutes have been accurately written. It docs not give additional force again by considering or reconsidering the merits of the resolution. If a public body feels that the resolution passed earlier needs to be reconsidered, they may do so if their rules so permit but while confirming the minutes of the earlier meeting, they have no right to delete the resolution merely because the majority of members present in the next meeting now do not want such a resolution to be passed. The standing committee has no authority to pass the resolution so as to delete a particular resolution as passed in the earlier meeting.

       Section 111(3)-Confirmation of minutes of meeting in subsequent meeting-A resolution passed in earlier meeting-Whether such resolution can be deleted in subsequent meeting while confirming minutes of earlier meeting-Held, nor confirmation of minutes is only verification of facts as to what actually happened in last meeting.

       Meeting

       Confirmation of minutes of earlier meeting-Resolution as passed in earlier meeting cannot be deleted. Confirmation of the minutes, as is understood in the law of meetings, is a verification of the facts as to what actually happened in the last meeting. Whether the resolutions passed have been correctly recorded; where it is a practice to record the gist of the discussion then whether the discussion is rightly recorded and while confirming the minutes of the earlier meeting the presiding authority shall read out the minutes and will ask the members whether this is the true account of the happenings at the last meeting. Confirmation is not an opportunity for reconsideration even to the same body. Shackleton on Law of Meetings quoting (1853) 1 E and B 594, R. v. York, Relied on.

       Section 4-Registration of society-No restriction as regards the number of societies to be registered Modalities to be considered in granting registration.-It is clear from tl1e bare reading of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act that the rule is to promote the growth of co- operative moven1ent in public interest and the exception is if such a registration of the society would be economically unsound and would have adverse effect on the co-operative movement and the public interest. There is no restriction in the said section for registration on the number of societies to be registered. The only principle which is to be observed by the authorities is that public interest should be safeguarded by considering the economic interest and general welfare of the members of the society and of the public at large. It is implicit in the section that co-operative principles must be enhanced and not any monopolistic system is to be encouraged. There is nothing wrong in the local MLA to have moved in matter and to have represented the cause of the villagers for registration of society in the village. It is for the local MLA to have assessed the situation in the Village and to have represented the economic interest of the villagers before registering authorities. It is for the local MLA to consider the welfare of the people of the village. He has to represent and attend the local causes and grievances of the people. In fact it is his bounden duty to look after the interest of the villagers.

       Sections 4, 8, 9, 152, 154 and Constitution of India, Article 227Petitioner aggrieved by orders of authorities passed under Sections 4, 8 and 9-Petitioner not availing of alternative remedy under Section 152 or 154-Writ petition not entertained. AIR 1976 SC 2446, Relied on.