JUDGMENT :

1. By the present Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have impugned Order dated 14th October 2021 passed by the Hon’ble Minister of Respondent No.5 in Revision Application No. 261 of 2021, rejecting the said Revision preferred by the Petitioners and confirming the Order dated 12th November 2020 passed by the Respondent No.1 under Section 78A(1) of The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, ‘M.C.S. Act’) thereby superseding Committee of Petitioner No.15 Co-operative Spinning Mill and appointing Respondent No.3 as ‘Administrator’ on Petitioner No.15.

2. Heard Mr. S.S. Shah, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. S.H. Kankal, learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5 (State) and Mr. Vijay Patil, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.6 to 16. Perused record.

3. Record discloses that, on the basis of a complaint dated 25th January 2020 addressed by the member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Hatkanangale Legislative Constituency to the Hon’ble Minister of Respondent No.5, the Respondent No.1 issued a notice dated 13th March 2020 under Section 78A of the M.C.S. Act to the Chairman/Deputy Chairman/Directors of Petitioner No.15, calling upon them, as to why the Managing Committee of Petitioner No.15 be not superseded. The Respondent No.1 also called upon the Petitioners to submit their say within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. An interim Order dated 12th November 2020 was passed by the Respondent No.1 appointing the Respondent No.3 as ‘Administrator’ of Petitioner No.15. The said interim Order was set-aside by this Court by an Order dated 21st October 2020 by giving direction to the Respondent No.1 to decide the said case within a period of four weeks after hearing the concerned parties.

4. Admittedly the Petitioners filed their reply to the said show cause notice on 18th September 2020, i.e. much after the period of 15 days, as was prescribed in notice dated 13th March 2020. The Respondent No.1 after hearing all the concerned passed Order dated 12th November 2020, superseding the Managing Committee of the Petitioner No.15-Society and appointing Respondent No.3 as its Administrator, as contemplated under Section 78A(1) of the M.C.S. Act. An appeal preferred under Section 152 of the M.C.S. Act before the Hon’ble Minister of Respondent No.5 has been rejected by impugned Order dated 14th October 2021.

5. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that, the Respondent No.1 at the first instance and the Respondent No.5 in appeal have failed to take into consideration the mandate of law of having effective consultation from the Federal Society to which the Petitioner No.15 is officiated/affiliated, before passing impugned Orders. He submitted that, though a specific contention was raised before the Appellate Authority, i.e. Respondent No.5, which is recorded in ground No.4 on internal page No.8 (page 250 of Petition) of impugned Order dated 14th October 2021, the Respondent No.5 has not even touched the said issue of ‘effective consultation’ and has proceeded to pass the impugned Order. He submitted that, the entire proceeding for superseding the Managing Committee and appointing administrator on Petitioner No.15 has been initiated at the instance of the sitting M.L.A. from Hatkanangale Constituency, who is also interested in a Spinning Mill having competition with Petitioner No.15-Society. He submitted that, in the impugned Order dated 12th November 2020, the Respondent No.1 has taken new grounds/additional grounds, which were not mentioned in the first notice dated 13th March 2020. He further submitted that, in the impugned Order passed by the Hon’ble Minister of Respondent No.5, again some additional grounds have been taken into consideration, which were not mentioned in the initial notice. He therefore submitted that, the impugned Order may be quashed and set-aside by allowing the present Petition.

6. Per contra, Mr. Vijay