The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of statutory provisions, particularly the interplay between Sections 69A and 69B of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, and the court's deference to legislative wisdom in maintaining Section 69B.

B. P. Dharmadhikari, J.

In the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-District Central Cooperative Bank questions use of section 69B of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 by respondents with submission that as Section 69A has been deleted by the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Amendment Act of 2013, Section 69B cannot survive. The submission is, Section 69A is soul, while Section 69B contains machinery surrounding it.

2. It will be appropriate to note that this is second writ petition filed by the petitioner. Earlier Writ Petition No.3012/2014 filed by petitioner was decided along with Writ Petition No.596/2014 filed by Vinod Bhujangrao Hingankar. Said Vinod is respondent no.5 in the present petition.

3. In Writ Petition Nos.596/2014 and 3012/2014, the controversy was whether Chairman of petitioner-District Central Cooperative Central Bank Limited can be an ex officio President of District Level Committee formed in terms of the Government Resolution dated 01-12-2008 read with subsequent order dated 23-12-2008. Respondent no.5-Vinod in that writ petition was aggrieved by order dated 15-12-2012 passed by the Minister of State for Cooperation and, therefore, had approached this Court. The present petitioner asserts that its Chairman must be the President of District Level Committee. The order was about 2½ years old and, hence, the parties were directed to file their respective submissions before the Hon’ble Minister and the Hon’ble Minister was expected to take fresh decision within six weeks. That decision has been taken on 24-07-2015. Aggrieved by that decision, the present petition has been filed. Hon’ble Minister accepted grievance of respondent no.5 Vinod and directed District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies Akola (present respondent no.3) to assume charge of District Level Committee. This Court while issuing notice in the matter on 25-08-2015, directed the parties to maintain status quo.

4. Shri Naik, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner has submitted that after parties were relegated to the forum before the Hon’ble Minister, notice of hearing dated 30-06-2015 came to be issued and matter was taken on 08-07-2015. On 08-07-2015, petitioner sought adjournment and accordingly application was moved. The representative of petitioner was given to understand that date will be communicated in due course, but without passing any order on adjournment application, matter came to be decided. He submits that petitioner got knowledge of order dated 24-07-2015 afterwards. He also states that finding in impugned order that petitioner was heard is factually incorrect and invites our attention to specific assertion in this respect in paragraph 24 of the writ petition. He also points out that this factual assertion has not been specifically traversed by the respondent. Inviting our attention to the chronology in which Sections 69A and 69B came on statute book, he submits that Section 69B was inserted in 2008 and coexisted with Section 69A till 14-02-2013, when later was deleted. He, therefore, states that Section 69A was in force for several years and all powers including power to regulate pay scales and other service conditions could be read only into Section 69A. Section 69B only conferred consequential or ancillary powers and after removal of Section 69A, since main powers or its source is lost, ancillary or consequential orders cannot be passed. He submits that, therefore, neither State Level Committee nor District Level Committee can be formed under Government Resolution dated 01-12-2008. He contends that because of deletion of Section 69A, Government Resolution 01-12-2008 is itself wiped out. Our attention is invited Ground (F) in the writ petition to demonstrate the prejudice caused to petitioner because of high handedness of District Level Committee insofar as petitioner is concerned.

5. Affidavit filed by respondent nos.1 to 4 on 16-10-2015 is also relied upon by him