The concept of territorial jurisdiction is inherent and inbuilt into the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, and the exercise of powers is confined to the territorial jurisdiction of the local area for which the person has been appointed.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mrs. Smita Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Rahul Tajne, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Ms Tajwar Khan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent/Assistant Registrar. Shri S. R. Dambhare, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is absent.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties.

3. All these writ petitions, raise an interesting issue regarding the question of territorial jurisdiction of the respondent No. 5 in exercising the powers as vested in him under the various provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short “the MCS Act”, hereinafter).

4. To understand the background, it is necessary to narrate the factual position in brief.

(a) All the petitioners are borrowers of the respondent No. 1-Bank, who have defaulted in the repayment of the borrowings, as a result of which, the respondent No. 1-Bank had initiated action against the petitioners under the provisions of section 101 of the MCS Act.

(b) It is an admitted position, that the respondent No.1-Bank, has Branch Office at Shegaon, where all the petitioners, conduct their various businesses. All the documents regarding the loan were executed at Shegaon, as well as the disbursements were made to the petitioners from the Shegaon Branch of the respondent No. 1. No transaction whatsoever took place at Nandura, which has the Head Office of the respondent No. 1, which is a Co-operative Bank, except for the fact that the sanction of the loan was made by the Head Office which was then communicated to the branch office at Shegaon, which in turn, got the mortgages of immovable properties situated at Shegaon, executed at Shegaon and disbursed the loans from Shegaon.

(c) The respondent No. 1, on the basis of a Resolution No. 13 passed in its Annual General Meeting dated 4-8-2019, held at Nandura, wherein it was resolved to initiate proceedings under section 101 of the MCS Act against all the defaulters, filed proceedings under section 101 of the MCS Act with the respondent No. 5 at Nandura. In those proceedings, an objection was raised by the petitioners, regarding tenability of the proceedings on the point of territorial jurisdiction, contending that all the transactions regarding the loan advanced to the petitioners, had taken place at Shegaon and so also the documents relating thereto had also been executed at Shegaon and therefore the respondent No. 5 who was the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies for Nandura, did not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under section 101 of the MCS Act.

(d) The respondent No. 1-Bank by its reply dated 29-7-2020 opposed the said application, contending that since the Head Office of the respondent No. 1 was at Nandura and the Resolution sanctioning the grant of the loan and so also the Resolution to initiate action against the defaulters were passed at the Head Office at Nandura, the respondent No. 5 would have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the applications under section 101 of the MCS Act.

(e) A rejoinder-cum-written notes of argument to this was filed by the petitioners on 5-8-2020.

(f) By the impugned order dated 5-8-2020, the respondent No. 5 relying upon the position that the loan application was sanctioned at Nandura as per Resolution dated 27-12-2016 and the Resolution for initiating legal proceedings was passed at Nandura on 4-8-2019, held that the respondent No. 5 had territorial jurisdiction. It is this order, which is impugned in all these petitions.

5. It is worthwhile to note that subsequently the respondent No. 5 has issued a Revenue Recovery Certificate (RRC) against two of the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 2083/2020 and 2037/2020 and an application for amendment raising a challenge to the same has been allowed in Writ Petition No. 2083/2020, whereas a similar application in Writ Petition No. 2037/2020 is p