Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 57
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
Z.A. HAQ, J.
Bajarang Labour Cooperative Society - Petitioner
Vs.
Divisional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors. – Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO .5249, 5250, 5251, 5252, 5253, 5254, 5255, 5256, 5257, 5258 OF 2014
Decided on : 8-1-2016
Important Points
Subject
Cooperative Societies - Membership and Registration
Act Referred
Headnote
Result – Writ Petition allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
- Subject Matter: The case concerns Cooperative Societies, specifically regarding membership and registration under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.
- Statutory Provisions: The judgment relies on Section 23(1A), Section 154, Section 154(1), and Section 158 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
- Delegation of Powers: The State Government delegated the powers of the Registrar to the District Deputy Registrar via a notification dated 11-09-2012, which is permissible under Section 158 of the Act.
- Jurisdictional Issue: The Divisional Joint Registrar lacks the jurisdiction to entertain and decide revision applications filed by the Federation against orders passed by the District Deputy Registrar acting as a delegatee of the Registrar.
- Outcome: The writ petitions were allowed; the impugned order by the Divisional Joint Registrar was set aside, and the order passed by the District Deputy Cooperative Societies was restored.
- Judicial Precedent: The judgment cites the Supreme Court case Behari Kunj Sahakari Awas Samiti and another vs. State of U.P. regarding the powers of review versus revision.
- Distinguishing Precedent: The court distinguished the current issue from the Full Bench judgment in Smt. Shireen Sami Gadiali and another vs. Spenta Co.op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., noting that the specific question of jurisdiction over a delegatee's order was not addressed in the earlier case.
- Clarification: The court clarified that it did not examine the legality of the District Deputy Registrar's order itself, leaving room for further challenges in appropriate proceedings.
References: (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Advocate Appeared:
Shri A.S. Kilor, Advocate for the petitioners,
Smt. S.S. Jachak & Shri V.P. Gangane, A.G.Ps. for the respondent Nos.1 and 2,
Shri P.C. Madkholkar, Advocate for the respondent No.3.
1. These writ petitions can be disposed by common judgment as same issue is raised in all the petitions.
2. Heard Shri A.S. Kilor, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Shri P.C. Madkholkar, learned Advocate for the respondent No.3 and Smt. S.S. Jachak and Shri V.P. Gangane, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. The petitioners are the Labour Cooperative Societies registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1960). The petitioner societies applied to the respondent No.3 Nagpur District Labour Cooperative Societies Federation Limited requesting for grant of membership. It is the case of the petitioner societies that the respondent No.3-Federation had pointed out certain deficiencies in the applications submitted by the petitioner societies. According to the petitioner societies, they complied with the requirements and removed the deficiencies. According to the petitioner societies, the respondent No.3-Federation was required to communicate its decision on the applications submitted by the petitioner societies within sixty days as laid down by Section 23(1A) of the Act of 1960, however, as the decision was not communicated within stipulated time, the petitioner societies approached the District Deputy Registrar for declaration that they have acquired deemed membership. The District Deputy Registrar, by the order dated 08-08-2013, allowed the applications filed by the petitioner societies. The respondent No.3-Federation, being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Deputy Registrar, filed revisions before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies which are allowed by the impugned order.
4. The contention of the petitioner societies is that the District Deputy Registrar, while considering their claim under Section 23(1A) of the Act of 1960 exercised the powers of the Registrar as a delegatee and therefore, the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the revisions filed by the respondent No.3-Federation. Shri A.S. Kilor, learned Advocate for the petitioner societies has pointed out the notification issued by the State Government on 11-09-2012 delegating powers of the Registrar to the District Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Nagpur City (1) and to the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies Nagpur City (2). This notification shows that all powers of Registrar under the Act of 1960 and the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 except powers under the sections referred in column No.4 of the notification, are delegated to the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies. It is submitted that Section 23(1A) of the Act of 1960 is not referred in column No.4 of the notification and therefore, it cannot be disputed that the powers of the Registrar conferred by Section 23(1A) of the Act of 1960, are delegated to the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur City (1) and (2). The learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that once the delegatee exercises the powers/authority, the powers of delegate are exhausted. It is further submitted that if the revisions filed by the respondent No.3-Federation before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies are held to be maintainable, then it will mean that the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, who is subordinate to the Registrar, is permitted to examine the legality and validity of the order which in the eye of law is deemed to be passed by the Registrar through his delegatee. The learned Advocate has further pointed out that the election of the respondent No.3-Federation are to be conducted for which electoral list is published and in view of the interim order passed by this Court, the names of the petitioner societies are included in the voters' list. It is prayed that the impugned order passed by the Divisional Joint Registra
