2007 Supreme(Bom) 1510

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
(Nagpur Bench)
Before : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.
Shankar Ramlu Banpalliwar and another …Petitioners
v.
State of Maharashtra and others …Respondents
Writ Petition No.4362 of 2007,
decided on 18th October, 2007

Headnote:Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies (Election to Committees) Rules, 1971 - Rules 5(2), 6(6) and (7) - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Sections 89-A and 80 - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, Rule 65 - Specified societies - Change of name of delegates - Challenge by earlier nominees (petitioners 1 and 2) on the ground that subsequent meetings for changing earlier nominations were held without any notice or permission of Registrar - Held that there is failure on part of Collector to exercise jurisdiction. - Now since in the instant case Courts have come to the conclusion that there is a failure on the part of the Collector to exercise jurisdiction, it would be legal and proper to interfere particularly since the list of the validly nominated candidates is to be published on 20.10.2007.

       For all these reasons, therefore, the instant writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders made by the Collector are quashed and set aside. The Collector, Yavatmal, is directed to incorporate the names of petitioners 1 and 2 as delegates of respondents 7 and 8-societies in place of respondents 5 and 6 and take consequential steps throughout.

       Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1971 - Rules 5(2), 6(6) and (7) - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Sections 89-A and 80 - Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Rules, 1961, Rule 65 - Specified societies - Change of name of delegates - Registrar has been given a general power of control and supervision over the societies in relation to the conduct of business and the management of societies - Sub-section (2) of Section 89-A gives a power to inspect the records and for that matter the petitioner has a power to summon any employee or officer - Rule 65 shows that the society has to keep minute book recording proceedings of general meetings and minute book recording proceedings of committee meetings - Registrar has control and power of supervision on the society as to whether the minute books and records are correctly maintained or not and if not to see that they are correct maintained. - Not it is clear from the reading of Section 89-A of the Act that the Registrar has been given a general power of control and supervision over the societies in relation to t he conduct of business and the management of societies. Sub-section (2) of Section 89-A gives a power to inspect the records and for that matter the petitioner has a power to summon any employee or officer. Under Section 80 of the Act the Registrar has also been given power to seize the record and take possession thereof in the contingencies expressed in sub-section (1) through the medium of Magistrate. Rule 65 shows that the society has to keep minute book recording proceedings of general meetings and minute book recording proceedings of committee meetings. The Registrar has control and power of supervision on the society as to whether the minute books and records are correctly maintained or not and if not to see that they are correctly maintained. Now it does not appear to Court that more than one minute book of the committee meetings or general meetings or parallel minute books can be prepared and maintained as can be seen from Rule 65. If at all there is any eventuality to do so, permission from the office of Registrar to do so would become imperative, in the light of the above provisions wherein the powers of control and supervision are conferred on the Registrar. Now in the instant case as narrated by the Court earlier, the Assistant Registrar has clearly stated in his report that a parallel minute book of the meeting of the Managing Committee only for recording the resolutions dated 16.9.2007 in respect of Wagholi Society and dated 12.9.2007 in respect of Mohadari Society were prepared. The original proceedings book of the meeting of the Managing Committee i.e., as contemplated by Rules 65(1) and (5) did not contain any such resolutions in respect of both the societies and on the contrary the resolutions in respect of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 choosing them as delegates were the only resolutions to be found in the original minute book. The reports in both cases further show that neither any intimation was given to the office of Assistant Registrar nor any permission was obtained from the said office for holding such meetings or preparing a parallel proceedings book. The D.D.R. concurred with the said reports in both the cases but the D.D.R. as well as the Collector expressed their helplessness on the ground that the decision of High Court in the case of Smt. Kamlabai (supra) would not permit them to act on the reports and recommendations of Assistant Registrar.