SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Bom) 491

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Amit Borkar, J.
Dattatraya Mahadev Ugale & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3500 of 2024
Decided On : 10-05-2024

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Prashant Bhavake, for the Petitioner; Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP, Mr. Surel S. Shah for the Respondent.

IMPORTANT POINT
An order under Section 81(3)(c) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act is administrative and not quasi-judicial, thus not subject to revision under Section 154.

Headnote:

QUASI-JUDICIAL - MAHARASHTRA COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT - Sections 81(3)(c), 152, 154 - The court analyzed the nature of orders under Section 81(3)(c) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, determining that such orders are administrative rather than quasi-judicial. It emphasized that the Registrar's discretion in appointing a Special Auditor does not require a hearing or weigh evidence, thus making the order not subject to revision under Section 154, which pertains to quasi-judicial decisions. The court's interpretation of the Act's provisions clarified the boundaries of administrative and quasi-judicial functions, influencing its decision to quash the stay order issued by the Revisional Authority.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged a stay order granted by the Revisional Authority against the appointment of a Special Auditor for a cooperative society, which was made by the Regional Joint Director under Section 81(3)(c) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The petitioners argued that the stay was improper as the order was administrative and not subject to revision.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the order under Section 81(3)(c) is administrative in nature and does not affect substantive rights, thus not subject to revision under Section 154. The court concluded that the Revisional Authority's stay order was not maintainable.

Issues: 1. Is an order under Section 81(3)(c) a quasi-judicial or administrative order? 2. If it is administrative, can it be challenged under Section 154? 3. Can the Revisional Authority quash proceedings based on irregularities?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the order under Section 81(3)(c) is administrative, requiring no hearing or evidence weighing, and thus not subject to revision under Section 154, which applies to quasi-judicial orders. The distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial orders was pivotal in the court's reasoning.

Final Decision: The court quashed the stay order issued by the Revisional Authority and stated that the revision against the order under Section 81(3)(c) is not maintainable, allowing the respondent to pursue other legal remedies.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Amit Borkar, J. - The challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by respondent No.2 granting a stay to the order dated 31 October 2023 passed by the Regional Joint Director (Sugar)-respondent No.4 in the exercise of power under Section 81(3)(c) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 ("the said Act") appointing respondent No.5 as Special Auditor for conducting a test audit of respondent No.6-society.

2. The petitioners are the complainants at whose instance respondent No.4 passed an order under Section 81(3)(c) of the said Act. The petitioners approached respondent No.2 for issuance of direction to respondent No.3 to direct respondent No.4 to conduct a test audit of respondent No.6 - Society. In furtherance of such directions, respondent No.4 passed an order dated 31 October 2023 appointing Respondent No.5 as Special Auditor to conduct a test audit of Respondent No.6. respondent No.6 challenged the order dated 31 October 2023 before Respondent No.1 by invoking power under Section 154 of the said Act. Respondent No.1, by the impugned order, granted a stay to the order dated 31 October 2023. Hence, the petitioners have filed a present writ petition.

3. Mr. Bhavake, learned advocate for the petitioners inviting my attention to the scheme of the said Act, and in particular Sections 81, 152 and 153, submitted that the order passed under Section 81(3)(c) of the said Act is merely an administrative order and against such order revision under Section 154 of the said Act is not maintainable.

4. Per contra, Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for respondent No.6, relying on the judgment in Chimanbhai Dadubhai Desai & Anr. v. Chaturbhai P. Patel & Ors. reported in AIR 1971 Gujarat 156 submitted that the order directing inquiry under Section 81(3)(c) of the said Act involves serious consequences to the cooperative society and, therefore, such order affects rights or liabilities of the cooperative society. Hence, such an order needs to be termed a quasi-judicial order. He submitted that, therefore, the expression "order or decision" in Section 154 of the said Act may contemplate orders that affect the rights and liabilities of the cooperative society. He submitted that the Revisional Authority is also empowered to decide the 'regularity of proceedings' under the Act and Rules and to quash and set aside such proceedings.

5. The precise questions which arise for consideration of this Court, based on the submissions made across the bar, may be formulated thus: (i) Whether an order under Section 81(3)(c) of the said Act is a quasi-judicial or administrative order; (ii) if such order is an administrative order, whether recourse to Section 154 of the said Act is available to the aggrieved party; and (iii) Whether Revisional Authority exercising power under Section 154 after examining 'regularity of proceedings' can quash and set aside the 'proceedings' under the Act and Rules.

6. For proper appreciation of the questions involved, it is necessary to set out relevant provisions of the said Act:

'81. Audit. (1) .............

(2) ...............

(3)(c) If it is brought to the notice of the Registrar that the audit report submitted by the auditor does not disclose the true and correct picture of the accounts, the Registrar or the authorised person may carry out or cause to be carried out a test audit of accounts of such society. The test audit shall include the examination of such items as may be prescribed and specified by the Registrar in such order.

82. Rectification of defects in accounts.

(1) If the result of the audit held under the last preceding section discloses any defects in the working of a society, the society shall within three months from the date of the audit report, explain to the Registrar the defects or the irregularities pointed out by the auditor or auditing firm, and take steps to rectify the defects and provide remedy to irregularities, and report to the Registrar the action taken by it thereon and place the sa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top