The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for independent exercise of quasi judicial power, adherence to principles of natural justice, and the need for objective reasoning when exercising statutory powers.

JUDGMENT :

Mangesh S. Patil, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Government Pleader waives notice for respondents nos. 1 to 5 and learned advocate Mr. Thoke waives notice for the respondents nos. 6 to 15. By consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are impugning the order dated 29-07-2022, of the respondent no. 4 - who is Divisional Deputy Registrar (hereinafter ’DDR’) of Co-operative Societies, in purported exercise of the powers under section 77A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter the ‘Act’).

3. The petitioners are the elected managing committee members of the Jalgaon Zilla Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. registered under the Act, for a period 2015-2020. Their term was to expire during the COVID-19 pandemic. The elections of all the co-operative societies in the State were postponed from time to time and lastly till 30-09-2022 by a Government decision. It is the case of the petitioners that their society also prepared a provisional voters’ list as per the directions of the authorities giving full particulars as is required by the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Election to Committee) Rules, 2014 (hereinafter ‘the Rules’). Necessary election expenses were also deposited. It is their allegation that because of the change in the Government where a new coalition has taken over at the State level, with an ulterior motive and mala fide, the new Government took a decision to remove the petitioners who belong to a political party now in the opposition. It is also alleged that on the directions of the Chief Minister dated 28 July 2022, the respondent no. 4 - DDR has obliged by passing the order under challenge.

4. The learned senior Advocate Mr. Hon would argue that ex facie the quasi judicial power has been exercised on the instructions of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. No independent enquiry was held. Giving a complete go-bye to the principles of natural justice all of a sudden, the impugned order was passed. On the previous day i.e. 28 July 2022, the Deputy Secretary to the State Government specifically informed in writing to the respondents no. 3 who is the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies and the respondent no. 4 - DDR wherein it was expressly informed that they should take appropriate steps for dissolution of the petitioners’ managing committee by invoking the powers under section 77A(f)(ii) of the Act. It was specifically mentioned that a new managing committee be constituted as per directions of the Hon’ble Chief Minister comprising of 11 new members who are respondents nos. 6 to 15 herein. This very communication clearly demonstrates that the respondent no. 4 - DDR had not acted independently but has acted at the behest of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, in flagrant violation of the powers supposed to be exercised by him. The fact situation is similar to the one that was before the Supreme Court in the matter of Chandrika Jha Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.; (1984) 2 SCC 41, which thereafter was followed in the matter of Manohar Lal (Dead) by LRs Vs. Ugrasen (Dead) by LRs. and Ors; (2010) 11 SCC 557. Though the order is purportedly passed by the respondent no. 4 - DDR under the purported exercise of the powers under section 77A, the authority which is acting behind the curtains is none other than the Hon’ble Chief Minister. There is absolutely dearth of evidence to demonstrate that the respondent no. 4 - DDR had independently undertaken any scrutiny of material and has taken some objective decision as is expected of the authority competent to exercise quasi judicial power.

5. He would point out that in response to the directions coming from the State Government by the communication dated 28 July 2022, on the same day, the respondent no. 4 - DDR had responded by a communication of even date elaborately expressing his strong opinion as to how in the fa