Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 1125
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Ujjal Bhuyan and N.R. Borkar, JJ.
Dughganga Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit - Appellant
Vs.
Divisional Joint Registrar, Pune and Ors. - Respondent
WP-ASDB-LD-VC-96/20
Decided On: 03-08-2020
For the Appellant : Surel Shah, Ajit Kenjale and Swaroop Karade
For the Respondent:A.A. Kumbhakoni, Advocate General, Abhijit Kulkarni, A-Panel AGP and M.M. Pabale, AGP
Headnote:
Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Section 102(1)(c)(ii) and (iv) and103(1) - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Petitioner seeks quashing of order - Order of liquidation - Learned counsel for petitioner learned Advocate General Maharashtra assisted by learned AGPs for respondents-State is petitioner in this case and is a co-operative society dealing with dairy and dairy products - It is registered under provisions of Co-operative Societies Act 1960 - It will hereinafter be referred to as petitioner society - According to petitioner society it has been complying with terms and conditions of its registration which it continues to do till - On an earlier occasion respondent No - 1 had passed an order on for winding up of petitioner society - Against aforesaid order petitioner society preferred appeal - Departmental minister acting as appellate authority had allowed appeal of petitioner society vide appellate order and set aside order of liquidation – Held, Impugned order is a continuation of previous proceeding which led to passing of final order is clearly an untenable proposition and certainly does not stand to reason - When respondent says that terms and conditions of appellate order have not been complied with and for that reason he seeks to invoke jurisdiction under section 102(1)(c) he has firstly to clearly state and point out as to what are non-compliances and to what extent - Only after non-compliances or extent thereof are put forward by Registrar or by his nominated officer then only society in a question can be expected to respond to same - Otherwise it will end up being a roving and fishing enquiry which is not permissible - In any case to arrive at finding that a society has ceased working which is condition stipulated in section 102(1)(c)(ii) or that it has ceased to comply with any condition as to registration and management which is condition contained in section 102(1)(c)(iv) specific facts and instances must be brought on record and thereafter concerned society should be called upon to controvert - Writ petition is allowed
1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 16.06.2020 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Dairy), Pune Division, Pune i.e., respondent No. 1 (exhibit-I to the writ petition).
2. In exercise of powers under section 102(1)(c)(ii) and (iv) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, respondent No. 1 has passed the impugned order styled as 'interim order' for liquidation of Dudhganga Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit and further in exercise of powers under section 103(1) of the aforesaid Act has appointed Shri J.P. Gavade, Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Taluka Indapur in the district of Pune i.e., respondent No. 2 as the liquidator of Dughganga Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit.
3. We have heard Mr. Surel Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Kumbhakoni, learned Advocate General, Maharashtra assisted by Mr. Kulkarni and Mr. Pabale, learned AGPs for the respondents-State.
4. Dughganga Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit is the petitioner in this case and is a co-operative society dealing with dairy and dairy products. It is registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It will hereinafter be referred to as the 'petitioner society'.
5. According to the petitioner society, it has been complying with the terms and conditions of its registration which it continues to do till date. On an earlier occasion, respondent No. 1 had passed an order on 24.08.2016 for winding up of the petitioner society. Against the aforesaid order, petitioner society preferred appeal under section 104 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (briefly "the Act" hereinafter) before the State Government. The departmental minister acting as the appellate authority had allowed the appeal of the petitioner society vide the appellate order dated 12.05.2017 and set aside the order of liquidation.
6. Petitioner society has asserted that after the appellate order was passed, it has complied with the terms and conditions of the said order.
7. All on a sudden it received a show cause notice from respondent No. 1 on 19.05.2020 with the allegation that petitioner society has not complied with the order dated 12.05.2017; as per report of the District Special Auditor dated 10.06.2019, petitioner society has not started its functioning of collection of milk. It was alleged that under a scheme, a sum of Rs. 462.76 lakhs was sanctioned to the petitioner society out of which Rs. 395.42 lakhs was disbursed to the petitioner society. Despite the above, petitioner society had not started functioning and had not collected milk. Therefore, respondent No. 1 stated that he proposed to take action for liquidation of petitioner society under section 102(1)(c) (ii) and (iv) of the Act.
8. It is stated that petitioner society sought for time to submit reply. Subsequently, reply was submitted on 15.06.2020 through the lawyer of the petitioner society. It was asserted that petitioner society was very much functional and that the terms and conditions imposed vide the appellate order dated 12.05.2017 were complied with. That apart, respondent No. 1 was informed that petitioner society had tied up with "Amul" a renowned dairy products manufacturing society for collection of milk. Respondent No. 1 was further informed that in view of COVID-19 pandemic, milk has been declared as an essential service. Therefore, if liquidator is appointed, it would adversely affect a large number of members of the petitioner society. Stating that notwithstanding famine in Indapur Taluka, petitioner society was very much functional and collecting milk. In that view of the matter, petitioner society prayed for withdrawal of the notice. Be it stated that the aforesaid reply was sent by email on 15.06.2020 whereby petitioner society sought for personal hearing and also sought for placing on record certain documents at the time of su
