JUDGMENT - KOCHAR R.J., J.:---Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. Heard Mr. Madkholkar, learned Counsel, for the appellant and Mr. Gawai, learned Government Pleader, for respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

3. By these letters patent appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, the impugned order dated 16-1-2003 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants and confirming the order passed by respondent No. 3 directing liquidation of the banks in question by passing interim order under section 102(1)(c)(v) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, the Act) is under challenge. In all these appeals, common and identical questions of facts and law are involved and, as such, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgments.

4. The facts of the case are as under:

The appellants are the District Level Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Multipurpose Development Bank Ltd. The main aim and object of the said bank is to provide long terms loans to farmers and to adopt and implement farming development policy formulated by the Government. Since long the said bank had been financing to the farmers with the aid of NABARD on furnishing Government guarantee and Governments assistance by way of raising funds through Government debentures. It was noticed that since last couple of years, recovery of the bank became unsatisfactory and the bank had gone into huge loss day by day. To overcome this problem, the Government had decided to make division of State level bank in 1999. This decision was challenged by the employees Union in the High Court and had obtained stay. Thereafter the employees/Union withdrew the said writ petition and from 1-10-2001 the District Level Banks came into existence.

5. On 26-3-2002, the bank, NABARD and the Government entered into an agreement and according to that agreement the dues payable to NABARD were divided into 15 instalments, of which the first instalment to the tune of Rs. 52.60 crores was payable on 1-7-2002. The first instalment was made available to the bank by way of loan by the Government and remitted NABARDs premium. The Government had made this arrangement as it was obligatory on the part of Government to assist the bank as per terms of the aforesaid agreement. The banks financial condition was very critical. It was the sole duty of the bank to remit the NABARDs loan through recoveries effected by it. On the said issue, all the District Banks were inspected by the Apex Bank and classification was awarded to them as "A", "B" "C" respectively. The banks which had paid more than 20% of total demand to the Apex Bank were classified in "A" category. The banks which had deposited up to 11 to 19% of total demand were classified in "B" category and all the other banks depositing less than 11% were classified in "C" category. The Government took a policy decision to continue the banks which come under "A" category and those banks were allowed to carry on their business on their own fund by licence from Reserve Bank of India. However, the banks which had fallen in B C categories were ordered to be liquidated and, therefore, the Competent Authority i.e. respondent No. 3, had passed the interim order directing liquidation of the banks. This order was impugned before the learned Single Judge who by the order dated 16-1-2003 dismissed all the writ petitions. This order of the learned Single Judge is under challenge in these appeals.

6. Mr. Madkholkar, learned Counsel, for the appellants contended that the said bank was bifurcated vide order dated 20-9-2001 passed by the Commissioner for co-operation and for each district the bank was constituted by virtue of an order passed under section 79-A of the passed on 26-3-2002. The impugned order passed by respondent No. 3 directing winding up of the banks is violative of the principles of natural justice. He contended that the decision had already been take

Click Here to Read the rest of this document