SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Bom) 2203

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR BENCH
B.P. Dharmadhikari, P.R. Bora, JJ.
Bhandara Zilla Parishad Wa Panchayat Samiti Karamachari Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
Divisional Joint Registrar - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1928 of 2012
Decided On: 07.11.2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Subhash Paliwal, Advocate
For the Respondent: M.A. Kadu, Asstt. Govt. Pleader and A.M. Ghare

Headnote:Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Sections 18(c), 79 and 91 - Bifurcation of societies. - Process of bifurcation of societies would be complete only after order under Section 18(c) of Act is fully implemented. - The earlier/old society has continued to function beyond 31.3.2005 i.e. beyond the date contemplated in clause 26 of the order, it has also continued even beyond 1.4.2007 i.e. the date contemplated in order under Section 18-C of the State Government. Thus, this continuous functioning of old society for both the areas i.e. Bhandara and Gondia may also have cast some financial liabilities. Those liabilities may also be required to be determined and apportioned in between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. Because of this situation emerging from perusal of record, we are not inclined to accept the contentions of the Counsel that the respondent No. 2 has admitted its liability and agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,14,80,353/- and interest of Rs. 2,59,487/- upon it. In this situation, it is apparent that though two societies have come into existence, the bifurcation, as such is not complete & order under Section 18-C of 1960 Act is not fully implemented. The statement made by the Government Pleader on 5.7.2012 and recorded by this Court in this writ petition that process of bifurcation was complete therefore does not appear to be correct. The process needs to be carried further in terms of the proposal dated 12.9.2006, as also the order of bifurcation dated 2.6.2007. The directions issued on 2.6.2007 are definitely directions under the 1960 Act and can be enforced in terms of Section 79(2) by the Authority to whom those powers are delegated. Here, it is not in dispute that those powers are delegated to respondent No. 1.

Judgment

B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. By this petition filed under Article 226 & 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner Society seeks a direction to respondent no. 1 Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies to exercise powers under Section 79 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 1960 Act'). Other prayer in the alternative is to direct respondent no.2 Co-operative Society, Gondia to hand over to the petitioner the assets as detailed in para 15 of the petition. There is one more alternate prayer & by it petitioner seeks a direction to respondent no. 3 State of Maharashtra to complete the process of bifurcation of the Co-operative Societies.

2. The facts are not in dispute. Earlier Bhandara district comprised of two areas which now form separate districts namely, Bhandara and Gondia. It was having a single Co-operative Society by name "Bhandara Zilla Parishad Wa Panchayat Samiti Karmachari Sahakari Sanstha, Bhandara" with Registration No. 102. Area of Bhandara and Gondia towns was then divided and two distinct districts i.e. Bhandara district and Gondia district were formed. Because of coming into existence of two independent revenue districts, it was also proposed to sub-divide above mentioned single Society. Proposal for said purpose was finalized on 12/9/2006. The proposal was then processed and orders under Section 18C of 1960 Act have been issued by respondent no. 3 State Government on 30th May, 2007/2nd June, 2007.

3. This petition is filed by a new Society which has been consequently registered for Bhandara district with prayers mentioned supra. The petitioner Society has been registered as an independent/new Society on 23/11/2007, while respondent no. 2 Society has been registered on 15/3/2008.

4. Seeking the relief of recovery of amount due and payable to petitioner by respondent no.2, Writ Petition No. 4040/10 was filed by present petitioner before this Court. In that Writ Petition after hearing petitioner, learned AGP as also counsel for respondent no.2 Society, this Court found that reliefs claimed could not have been granted in exercise of jurisdiction. It accepted contention of respondents that petitioner had remedy of filing dispute under Section 91 of 1960 Act or then to file a civil suit against respondent no.2. Petitioner then filed CAW No.1878/2011 in said disposed of Writ Petition No. 4040/2010 and this Court then clarified its order by declaring that petitioner Society can approach any authority or forum available to it for redressal of its grievance, in accordance with law.

5. After said clarification, petitioner moved an application under Section 79 r/w 18C of 1960 Act before respondent no.1. That application came to be registered as Case No. 4/2011. The petitioner then sought a direction to respondent no. 2 Gondia Society to clear its statutory monitory liability by paying to petitioner the amount with interest @ 12.5%. Respondent no.2 Gondia Society objected to the tenability of those proceedings. They pointed out that proceedings under Section 18C were taken up by State Government and consequently directions were also issued by State Government. As such, respondent no.1 could not have interfered in the matter.

6. Respondent no.1 accepted this objection while delivering order on 21st February, 2012. Application moved by petitioner was rejected.

7. It is after that rejection that present Writ Petition has been filed.

8. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration before the earlier Division Bench, in the light of rejection of Writ Petition No. 4040/2010 and a later order dated 29th July, 2011 clarifying the earlier order, Division Bench found the second approach in Writ Petition misconceived. The said order dated 5th July, 2012 reads as under :

"We do not think that this writ petition can be entertained because after the clarification given by the learned Government Pleader on instructions that the process of bifurcation is complete, the petitioner has approa



















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top