Back
2010 Supreme(Bom) 618
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. SAVANT
Pune District Supervision Co-operative Society & Others
Versus
The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary to the Ministry of Co-operative and Textiles & Others
WRIT PETITION NO.5463 OF 1996 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.119 OF 2006 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.124 OF 2006 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2268 OF 2006 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3145 OF 2006 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4158 OF 2006 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7490 OF 2006
Decided on : 22-04-2010
For the Petitioners:G.S. Godbole with Ms. Manjiri Parasnis, M.L. Patil, Advocates.
For the Respondent: R1 to R4, C.R. Sonawane, Assistant Government Pleader.
Headnote:Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act, 1999 - Section 69-A - Introduction of Section 69-A in Act - For streamlining manner of functioning of various societies and facilitate speedy recovery of loan etc. - Notification issued by State - All District Central Co-operative Banks directed to contribute to supervision funds - Appointed Committee - Committee recommended to appoint full time Executive Officer from D.C.C. Bank - G.R. issued by State-respondent-1 accepting various recommendations - Societies given liberty to choose officer to be appointed as E.O. or Secretary - Respondent-3, District Deputy Registrar appointed himself as E.O. of petitioner societies - Challenged - Contention, State-respondent-1 cannot take decision contrary to decision taken vide G.R. dated 13.10.1989 - Held - Impugned orders not sustainable - Respondents cannot reverse decision as contained in circular - Impugned letters/orders quashed and set aside - Petition allowed. - It would be significant to note that after the said Section 69-A was introduced in the statute book the respondent No. 1 - State had appointed a Committee headed by an expert in the Co-operative field Shri Shamrao Kadam, for making various recommendations to the respondent No. 1 in respect of the cadre of the Secretaries. The said Committee had gone into various aspects of the service conditions of the Secretaries and the control over the Supervision Societies over the Primary Societies. The Committee in its report has noted that it was necessary to have a full time Executive Officer preferably an Officer from the concerned District Central Co-operative Bank to look after day to day business of the supervision societies. It was further observed by the committee that since the District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies in the particular District was already overburdened with various legal and other matters falling within his jurisdiction under the said Act. It was not practically possible for the District Deputy Registrar to pay much attention to the work of the supervision societies. It was, therefore, the recommendation of the said Shamrao Kadam Committee that a Committee of eight persons having a representative of the District Central Co-operative Bank who should be the Managing Committee of such Supervision Societies. It is further, significant to note that the said report of the Shamrao Kadam Committee was accepted by the State Government and consequently, Government Resolution dated 13th October, 1989 came to be issued accepting the various recommendations made by the said Shamrao Kadam Committee. Clause 4(a) of the Schedule to the said Government Resolution specifically refers to the recommendations of the committee in respect of the District Level Supervision Societies. As a result of the acceptance of the report of the said Shamrao Kadam Commit tee, Model Bye-laws were prepared by the Registrar and approved. In terms of Bye-law No. 15 of the Model Bye-laws an Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society or an Officer of the District Central Co-operative Bank is to be appointed as Ex officio Secretary/Chief Executive Officer of the Supervision Societies. The aforesaid facts, therefore, indicate that respondent No. 1 had taken a conscious decision based on the recommendations of the Shamrao Kadam Committee which decision was reflected in the approved Model Bye-laws framed by the Registrar and therefore, the State without there being any material on record or without there being any further study being carried out could not have reversed the decision already taken of leaving it to the Supervision Societies either to appoint the Assistant Registrar or an Officer of the District Central Co-operative Bank as the Chief Executive Officer. The impugned letters/orders, therefore, in Court’s view are unsustainable on the said ground also.
The said decision in view is also contrary to the Bye-laws especially in the fact situation of this case wherein Model Bye-laws were framed pursuant to the decision taken by the State Government to accept the recommendations of the said Shamrao Kadam Committee and the Bye-laws having been framed by incorporating the essence of the recommendations of the said Committee in the Bye-laws.
It is also required to be seen that essentially the functioning of the Supervision Societies is to supervise the Primary Societies who advance loans to the agriculturists for various purposes. The said loans are advanced under the aegis of the concerned District Central Co-operative Banks. The concerned District Central Co-operative Banks, therefore, have a stake in the proper functioning of the said Supervision Societies as the recovery of the loans advanced by them depends on the Supervision Societies. The District Central Co-operative Banks have, therefore, a stake in the functioning of the Supervision Societies and therefore, in the said context the Shamrao Kadam Committee had observed that it would be in the interest of the District Central Co-operative Banks that an Officer of the said Bank, functions as a Chief Executive Officer/Secretary of the Supervision Societies. The impugned letters/orders, therefore, have the effect of interfering with the functioning of the said Supervision Societies, who otherwise were entitled to choose between the Assistant Registrar or an Officer of the District Central Co-operative Bank to be the Chief Executive Officer or Secretary of the Supervision Societies. A conscious decision taken, therefore, is sought to be reversed by an executive fiat without there being any material for the same.
Another aspect to be noted is that if the District Deputy Registrar is required to play two roles namely the Chief Executive Officer as also discharge his duties as District Deputy Registrar under the said Act it would result in conflict of interests as the District Deputy Registrar then would have to decide upon the actions taken by him as a Chief Executive Officer of the Supervision Societies which would not be in the interest of the functioning of the Supervision Societies or his functioning as the District Deputy Registrar.
It would also be significant to note that the similar action of the respondents in the year 1996 was challenged by the Supervision Societies by filing Writ Petition Nos. 4904 of 1996. and 4905 of 1996 which writ petitions came to be disposed of in view of the order passed in the year 2003. By which order the respondents had again reverted back to the original position, whereby leaving the choice of choosing between the Assistant Registrar or an Officer of the D.C.C. Bank to act as Chief Executive Officer to the concerned supervision society. The said order passed in the said Writ Petition Nos. 4904 of 1996 and 4905 of 1996 having become final and binding, it was not open for the respondents to once again reverse the decision as contained in the said circular. In Court’s view, therefore, the impugned letters/orders are unsustainable on the aforesaid ground also and would therefore have to be quashed and set aside.
R.M. SAVANT, J.
The above group of Petitions raise a common issue and involve identical facts and therefore, are heard and disposed of together. The challenge in the above Writ Petitions, save and except Writ Petition No.5463 of 1996 is to the Circular dated 28th October, 2005 (Ex.O) issued by Respondent No.2, the Letter/Order dated 19th October, 2005 (Ex.Q) issued by the Respondent No.1 to the Respondent No.2 and the Letter/Order dated 17th December, 2005 (Ex.P) issued by the Respondent No. 4. In Writ Petition No.5463 of 1996, the challenge is to the Letter/Order dated 25th September, 2006 issued by the Respondent No.3. The Letter/Order dated 19th August, 1996 issued by the Respondent No.1. The said Letters/Orders are the predecessors to the Letters/Orders impugned in Writ Petition No.124 of 2006 and the other companion matters.
2. The Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.124 of 2006, 2268 of 1996, 3145 of 2006, 4158 of 2006, 5436 of 1996 and 7490 of 2006 are the District Supervision Co-operative Societies namely the Solapur District Supervision Co-operative Society, Kolhapur Zilla Dekhrekh Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Thane District Supervision Co-operative Society Limited, Ahmednagar Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari Sanstha Limited, Sindhudurg Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit and Pune District Supervision Co-operative Society and another. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.119 of 2006 is a Taluka Supervision Society namely Mangalwedha Taluka Co-operative Supervision Society Limited, Solapur and others. As mentioned here in above, all the aforesaid District Supervision Co-operative Societies and the Taluka Supervision Co-operative Society have challenged the Letters/Orders mentioned here in above. For the sake of convenience the facts in Writ Petition No.124 of 2006 would be referred to, as the same has been treated as lead matter.
3. The genesis of the issue which arises in the above Petitions is in the introduction of Section 69A in the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (Hereinafter referred to as “Said Act”) which was introduced by way of amendment in the said Act in the year 1975 with a view to provide for proper supervision of the working of the Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies and Multipurpose Co-operative Societies. It appears that the State felt the need to establish the cadre of Societies to be known as the Co-operative State Supervision Cadre. The basic intention of the legislature in introducing Section 69A seem to be streamlining the manner of functioning of the various Societies and facilitate the speedy recovery of loan etc. with a view to maintain proper growth and health of the Co-operative movement. It is in the said background that the said Section 69A was introduced in the statute book in the year 1975. The salient features of the said Section 69A are as under:-
(i) Co-operative State Cadre constitution of Secretaries of Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society, Multipurpose Co-operative Society etc.
(ii) Immediate supervisory control of the cadre given to the Taluka Supervision Society consisting of the Societies Act to which the cadre persons are deputed.
(iii) Fund known as Co-operative State cadre employment fund established for the meeting expenses of the cadre.
(iv) Societies deriving the benefit from the cadre to contribute to the fund. Such Societies to be notified by the State Government.
(v) The State Government granted powers to make rules relating to the fund.
4. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 69A(4) of the said Act issued a Notification bearing No.CDR10179/3008 – (21)2C dated 3rd March, 1979 directing all the District Central Co-operative Banks except the Bombay DCC and the Ahmednagar DCC to contribute to the Supervision Funds. The State Government also felt the need to appoint a Committee of experts to submit a report to the State Government in respect of the problems faced by and the functioning of the Supervision Societ
