Respondent Nos. 5 to 65 in the present appeal had filed

appeal under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies

Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) before the Joint

Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Dairy), Mumbai, against the order

dated 30th December, 2006, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative

Societies (Dairy), Pune. The Deputy Registrar in that order

had granted approval to the resolution passed in the Annual General

Body meeting held on 11th November, 2005, under Section 35 of the

Act which expelled 225 societies from its membership. The order

dated 30th December, 2006, was challenged on various grounds,

including that there was no proper meeting and no proper procedure

was followed in accordance with law. The affected parties were not

granted proper notices. Notices of the Annual General Meeting dated

11th November, 2005 were sent on 11th October, 2005 and were

received by the concerned societies from 12th to 18th October, 2005 and

as such the said notice is not of clear 30 days as required under law.

Reliance was also placed upon different judgments of the Court.

Another contention that was raised before the authorities was that

approval had been granted without proper application of mind and in a

routine manner. As there was no compliance of Section 35 of the Act

read with Rules 28 and 29 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies

Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) which are

mandatory, the entire order is vitiated. These arguments were

contested by the Appellant that notices were issued to all 263 societies

on 6th June, 2005 and from 11th October, 2005 only 38 societies started

supplying milk again and remaining 225 societies were absent on 11th

October, 2005. Despite service of notice, no written representation was

received. No explanation to show cause notices was received and

resultantly they were expelled. The Appellate Authority, Joint Registrar,

Co-operative Societies (Dairy), Worli, after dealing with all these

contentions in great detail, held as under:-

“I have gone through the records and proceedings of the

Respondent No.1. It is true that the Respondent No.1 has

given sufficient opportunity to all the concerned Societies

including the Appellants and even inspite of purshis on

behalf of some of the Appellants Societies, they have not

started supply of milk and as such it is clear that the

Appellants Societies did not wish to start supply of milk to

the Respondent No.2 and as such it is the duty of the

Respondent No.1 to see the well being of the Society and

if some of the Societies who have expelled started supply

of milk, there is no illegality on the part of the Respondent

No.1 in not giving approval for their expulsion. Under

these circumstances I am not agreeable with the

submission on behalf of the Appellants that the Resolution

cannot be segregated.

44. It seems that after receipt of the proposal and filing

of say on behalf of the Appellants which is dated

26.6.2006, no positive case is made out by the Appellants

but some general statements are made by them in the said

say. I find that after submissions of all the documents, the

Respondent No.1 by deputing officers from the Department

have taken inspection of the record of the Respondent

No.2 Sangh in its office so as to satisfy himself about the

facts and circumstances. I have minutely gone through the

impugned order passed by the Respondent No.1. The

said order is detail order and the Respondent No.1 has

considered all the aspects i.e. Factual as well as legal and

has discussed the same in his order categorically and

thereafter only and by giving proper and sufficient

opportunity for leading oral evidence by way of affidavits

and the interrogatories and to produce the documentary

evidence, has passed the impugned order. That according

to my findings, the impugned order is perfectly legal and

valid and it is according to the facts and law. The

Appellants have acted against the interest of the

Respondent No.2 Sangh by non supplying o