: Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 should be sparingly done and not as an appellate jurisdiction.

Headnote:JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---Co-operative Societies - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Sections 4, 8, 9, 152 and 154 - The court dismissed a petition challenging the registration of a co-operative society for milk collection in a village. The petitioner alleged political pressure and mala fide intentions behind the registration. However, the court held that such local matters should be resolved through internal machinery provided by the Act and that the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction should be sparingly exercised.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the registration of a co-operative society for milk collection in a village under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition on grounds of alternative remedies available under the Act and lack of illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.
Issues:
Challenge to registration of co-operative society based on political pressure and mala fide intentions.
Ratio Decidendi:
Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction sparingly; internal machinery provided by the Act for resolving local co-operative society matters.
Final Decision:
Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith.

2.The petitioner society has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Articles 14, 19(1)(c), (g) to challenge the permission dated 3-10-1996 granted to a proposed co-operative society i.e. the respondent No. 3. The petitioner society was registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act on 26-3-93. The society's functioning is in the village Dahigaon having population of 1147 of 197 families. The petitioner society contends that it is collecting milk approximately 279 litres from the village. The petitioner has further stated that there is another society which is also collecting milk on an average 230 Litres. This latter society is also a proposed society from the said village. According to the petitioner, the total availability of the milk in the village is approximately 630 litres. On the basis of the Government Resolution dated 2-4-1993, there is no scope for registering the third society. According to the petitioner, permission to the third proposed society cannot be granted as the criteria prescribed in the said Government Resolution for collection of milk are not satisfied. The petitioner society contends that the decision to grant such permission to the respondent No. 3 is not only beyond the scope of the Government Resolution dated 2-4-93 but, is mala fide and under the political pressure from the local M.L.A. respondent No. 4 herein. According to the petitioner the conditions prescribed in the Government Resolution were relaxed for collection of the milk. The petitioner had initially challenged the order dated 3rd October, 1996 granting permission to the respondent No. 3 to open Bank Account and start milk collection. It appears that after the writ petition was filed, the respondent No. 3 was granted registration on 19-10-1996 by the respondent No. 2. The petitioner has challenged by amendment, the decision of the respondent No. 2 the Assistant Registrar to grant registration to the respondent No. 3 society on 19-10-1996. The petitioner has amended petition after leave granted by this Court. The petitioner challenged both these decisions of the Assistant Registrar i.e. the order dated 3rd October, 96 granting permission to the respondent No. 3 society to open Bank account and collect milk and also the decision dated 19-10-1996 to register the respondent No. 3 society under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner also challenged the order dated 18-3-1996 passed by the respondent No. 5 the Minister for State relaxing the conditions for the respondent No. 3 society for collection of milk. According to the petitioner, the Minister had no powers tot relax the milk collection conditions prescribed in the Government Resolution dated 2-4-93 and subsequently, modified by another Government Resolution dated 29-4-19995. The main thrust of the petitioner's opposition to the registration of the respondent No. 3 society in the village is that of political pressure and influence, in particular the local M.L.A. respondent No. 4. The petitioner has, therefore, based its case that in spite of there being no scope for registration of third society, the authorities have registered the third society for collection of milk solely for the extraneous reasons i.e political pressure.

3.The main contesting society i.e. respondent No. 3 has submitted that the petitioner society and the another proposed society i.e. Sitamai Co-operative Society are hand-in-gloves with each other and there is only difference in the name. The second proposed society is nominal to prevent a third society to come in the village. On behalf of the respondent No. 3 it is further submitted that they are collecting adequate milk and the petitioner society will not be adversely affected at all. The respondent No. 3 has naturally supported the decisions of the authorities including the decision of the Minister who have relaxed the milk col

Click Here to Read the rest of this document