Deregistration under Section 21A of the Act can only be based on specified statutory grounds and not on extraneous considerations. The right to form association cannot be jeopardized based on non-statutory grounds.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard finally.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an order passed by the Minister (Cooperation) in Revision Application No.8 to 2020 thereby upholding the order dated 19th December, 2019 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society, Konkan Division, in Appeal No.49 of 2018 allowing the appeal preferred by respondent No.3 Society and ordering the deregistration of the petitioner Society purportedly under the provisions of Section 21A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (“the Act, 1960”).

3. Background facts leading to this petition can be stated in brief as under:

(a) The petitioner is an employees’ society, classified as “Salary Earners Society”. Members of the petitioner are the employees of Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation (“the Corporation”). Respondent No.3 is also a society of the salary earners who are employed with the Corporation. Respondent No.3 was registered under the provisions of the Act, 1960, in the year 1995.

(b) Pursuant to the request of the promoters of the petitioner on 15th December, 2016 the Commissioner of the Corporation issued a certificate to the effect that the persons mentioned at Sr. No.1 to 120 in the list annexed to the certificate were the permanent employees on the establishment of the Corporation. After due enquiry the petitioner Society was registered on 31st January, 2017 under the provisions of the Act, 1960 under the name and style of Mira Bhayander Mahanagar Palika Shramik Karmchari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. The Executive Engineer of the Corporation allotted a premises for the office of the petitioner Society within the precincts of the Corporation. On 20th May, 2019 the Corporation also granted ‘no objection certificate’ to deduct the amount towards shares and loan installments etc., from the salary of the members – employees.

(c) Respondent No.3 Society preferred an appeal before the Divisional Joint Registrar challenging the grant of registration certificate to the petitioner, under Section 152 of the Act, 1960, on the grounds, inter alia, that the petitioner had not obtained no objection certificate from respondent No.3, the Commissioner of the Corporation had not granted no objection certificate to register the petitioner Society, out of the members of the petitioner Society, 110 members were already the members of respondent No.3 Society and there were only 258 new members of the petitioner Society and the operation of the petitioner Society in the same establishment will affect the business of respondent No.3 Society and it would become unviable to run the said Society.

(d) By a judgment and order dated 19th December, 2019 the Divisional Joint Registrar, Konkan Division was persuaded to allow the appeal and cancel the registration certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. The Divisional Joint Registrar was of the view that no objection certificate of respondent No.3 Society and the Commissioner of the Corporation to register a new Society was required to be obtained, practicability of operation of another Society in the same establishment was required to be considered and there was a possibility of both the petitioner and respondent No.3 Society facing financial constraints and eventually become unviable. The fact that 110 members of the petitioner were already the members of respondent No.3 Society was also arrayed against the petitioner.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision before the State Government. The Minister (Cooperation) by the impugned order was persuaded to dismiss the revision application. The Minister (Cooperation) found that there was similarity in the name of the petitioner and respondent No.3 and only the word “Shramik” was the addition in the name of the petitioner. Secondly, according to the Minister (Cooperation) i