The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to principles of natural justice, including providing detailed reasons for decisions and ensuring proper notice and consultation as per the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties, heard finally at the state of admission.

THE CHALLENGE

2. Petitioner assails the order dated 29.04.2021 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Nashik, Division Nashik (for short the ‘DJR’) passed in Appeal A-30/2020, by which the DJR has set aside the order darted 01.12.2020 passed by the District Deputy Registrar (for short the ‘DDR’) disqualifying respondent Nos. 4 to 7 as representatives of Managing Committee of Mahavir Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Chopda (for short ‘Mahavir Society’).

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. Mahavir Society is a registered Co-Operative Society under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the ‘Act 1960’). Petitioner claims to be a member of the Mahavir Society. He filed complaints before the DDR on 30.01.2020 and 06.03.2020 seeking disqualification of respondent Nos. 4 to 7, inter-alia on the ground that they were defaulters. A show cause notice was issued to respondent Nos. 4 to 7 on 26.08.2020, calling upon them to explain as to why they should not be disqualified. After hearing parties, DDR passed order dated 01.12.2020 disqualifying respondent Nos. 4 to 7 as being member of the Managing Committee.

4. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 filed appeal bearing No. A-30/2020 before DJR. By order dated 20.01.2021, DJR stayed the order passed by DDR. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2952 of 2021 challenging the interim order dated 20.01.2021. The Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 01.03.2021 directing DJR to dispose of the appeal within two months. After hearing parties, DJR was pleased to allow the appeal by order dated 29.04.2021 and set aside the order passed by DDR on 01.12.2020. Petitioner is challenging the order dated 29.04.2021 passed by DJR.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

5. Appearing for petitioner Mr. Vijay Patil, the learned Counsel would invite my attention to the provisions of Section 73CA of the Act, 1960 and contend that the provisions contemplates disqualification of a member if he /she is a defaulter of any Society. He relies upon the reports of the Assistant Registrar and the Deputy Registrar dated 27.02.2020 and 25.08.2020 respectively to contend that the reports conclusively proved that Respondent No. 4 Mr. Shantilal Tarachand Bothra had defaulted on the credit facilities extended to him. He invited my attention to the findings recorded by DDR in order darted 01.12.2020, to demonstrate the exact amounts of defaults by Respondent Nos. 4 to 7.

6. Mr. Patil would then invite my attention to the various findings recorded by the DJR while passing the impugned order dated 29.04.2021. He fairly concedes to the position that the defaults in respect of Multi State Co-Operative Credit Society would not be covered under the provisions under Section 73CA of the Act, 1960. He would therefore concentrate only on defaults committed by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in Mahavir Society. Mr. Patil raises strong objection to the findings recorded by the DJR about respondent No. 6 (Sharmila Sudhir Jain) being a coborrower, is not covered by the definition of the term ‘defaulter’. He would submit that even a coborrower is covered by the definition of the term defaulter. Mr. Patil would further submit that even though in respect of respondent No. 7, finding is recorded by the DJR that he has committed default in respect of loan amount of Rs. 7 Lakhs, he is erroneously let off by the DRJ on twin grounds of (i)-not following the procedure of Rule 58 of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Rules, 1961 (for short ‘Rules 1961’) and (ii) non-consultation with the Federal Society as provided for in Section 78A of the Act, 1960. So far as, the first ground is concerned, Mr. Patil would submit that the provisions of Rule 58 of the Rules,1961 cannot be construed to mean that, on expiry of period of 60 days of iss