2006 Supreme(Bom) 761

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Subhas Anna Kool
Versu
Daund Tal. Sahakari Dudh uttapadak Sangh Maryadit (proposed) Varvand
Decided on MAY 2, 2006

Headnote:Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Section 4 - Party seeking registration of co-operative society - Application - Grant of - Even when t here is only one applicant the authority cannot grant such application technically - The decision has to be arrived at judicially - The order passed by the authority permitting party to open Bank account cannot be said to be administrative order but is a quasi-judicial order. - Any order relating to the pre-requirement for the registration of the society including the opening of the Bank account would be in the process of the registration of the society under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The question of permitting any party to open bank account or to collect milk for the purpose of ascertaining whether such applicant would be entitled for registration as a co-operative society under the said Act or not, would imply a decision on objective application of mind to the materials placed before the authority deciding such issue and more so when there are more than one person to claim such registration for the same Taluka. Even when there is only one applicant, the authority cannot grant such application mechanically. It has to ascertain whether all the requirements of law are satisfied and whether the society would be in consonance with the Government directives issued under the said Government Resolution. Therefore, there is a duty cast upon the authority to decide about the right of the party seeking registration of co-operative society under the said Act and the decision in that regard to arrive at judicially. The requirement of hearing the concerned party before any decision is taken in relation to an application for registration of society of milk producers in the State, which will obviously involve ascertainment of the eligibility for registration, has been specifically included in the policy directives issued by the Government under the said Act. Being so, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the order which was passed by the respondent was purely an administrative order. It has to be and was a quasi-judicial order. Such an order declares the right to open Bank account and to collect the milk which are "prelude" to the registration of the co-operative society of milk producers in the State. The entire process implies investigation with opportunity of presenting the case by the claimant as well as by an objector, if any, or the competitor. It requires ascertainment of the facts by means of evidence placed before the authority irrespective of the fact whether there is competition or not, and adjudication of the claim in that regard based on such facts and materials before the concerned authority by application of law comprised under Section 4 and other relevant provisions of the said Act read with the said Government Resolution. Therefore, the order has to be held as a quasi-judicial order.

       Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Sections 4 and 9 - Opening of bank account in name of proposed society - Order permitting to - An order in exercise of power under Section 4 of Act - Order required to be passed after hearing applicant and taking into consideration policy directives of Government - Such an order is quasi-judicial order.

       Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 - Chapter XVII, Rule 18 Explanation Judicial Review Order granting permission to open Bank account in name of proposed Society Passed by quasi -Judicial Authority Order subjected to judicial review in terms of Explanation Clause to Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of Appellate Side Rules Writ jurisdiction can be exercised. Since the order dated 18.10.2005 was a quasi -judicial order passed by a quasi -judicial authority, therefore, it was the order which could have been subjected to judicial review before learned single Judge in terms of the explanation clause to Rule 18 of Chapter XVII of the Appellate Side Rules and therefore no fault can be found with the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the learned single Judge in relation to the order dated 18.10.2005.

       Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 129 and Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, Chapter 17, Rule 18 Order passed by authority on application by party seeking registration of society Order passed by authority being quasi-judicial, authority can be subjected to judicial review before High Court in terms of explanation to Rule 18.

       CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Article 226 Judicial Review Fraud Discrepancy of trifle nature in pleadings Not amounts to play fraud upon Court Nature should be that mislead Court to believe case to be true Results in passing an order on basis of such belief. The third point for consideration which arises in the matter is whether there had been suppression of material fact and whether it has influenced in any manner the process of judicial review in the matter in hand while passing the impugned order. In this regard, apart from the allegation, nothing is brought to the notice of this Court which could be said to have in any manner influenced the process of judicial review of the order dated 18.10.2005 by the learned single Judge while disposing the writ petition. It is not that every discrepancy of howsoever trifle nature in the pleadings that could be said to amount to play fraud upon the Court. The discrepancy in the pleadings should be of such a nature that it should mislead the Court to believe the case of the petitioner to be true and should result in passing an order on the basis of such belief.

       CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Article 226 Writ petition challenging order passed on application seeking registration of society Alleged discrepancy were not even in the pleadings but in the synopsis to the petition as compared to pleadings in the petition Plea therefore negatived.