IMPORTANT POINT
A corrigendum cannot substantively alter existing policy without following proper legal procedures, as established by constitutional and administrative law.

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Jain, J.

1. Rule. Since, the pleadings are completed, by consent of the parties, all three petitions are heard finally.

2. These three writ petitions mounts a common challenge to the Government Corrigendum No.SSV-911/Case no.1047/2-dated 14th February 2017 issued by Respondent No.1-Ministry of Cooperation, Marketing & Textile. Since the issues raised in all the petitions are common, same is disposed of by common order.

3. Petitioners are registered Co-operative Societies in various villages who are aggrieved by the impugned corrigendum. There are three Civil Applications filed in Writ Petition No.3712 of 2017 who are seeking to intervene in the present lis to oppose the Petitioner and in support of the impugned corrigendum.

4. Petitioners seek to challenge the authority of Respondent No.1 to issue impugned corrigendum dated 14th February 2017 to the Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013, whereby in clause (1) of the Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013, which states that there should be “only one” Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society (PACCS) in one Revenue Village is now sought to be replaced by following clauses 1, 1A and 1B which is impugned in present petitions and reads as under:-

“1. As far as possible, there should be single Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society in a single revenue village. However, registration of more than one such societies can be permitted in a single revenue village where there is a scope therefore, after complying the other criteria related to financial capacity.

1A. The proposed primary agricultural cooperative credit society should accumulate minimum share capital amounting to Rs.5.00 lakhs before the registration of the society.

1B. The society is required to commence at least one of its business within a period of one year from the date of its registration.”

[emphasis supplied]

Original Marathi version of corrigendum dated 14th February 2017 is as under :-

Submissions of Petitioners in Writ Petition No.4943 of 2017:-

5. Petitioner represented by Shri. S. Rane, learned counsel submits that the impugned corrigendum dated 14th February 2017 is patently arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, since there is abrupt change in policy without any rational. Petitioner further submitted that the impugned corrigendum is issued merely on the basis of a letter addressed by the Commissioner of Cooperation and same is not based on recommendation of any expert committee and, therefore, it suffers from non-application of mind. Petitioner further submitted that the impugned corrigendum has amended only clause (1) without amending other clauses of Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013, which would lead to patent absurdity. It is further submitted that under the garb of “Corrigendum” substantive change has been made in the existing policy which permitted registration of only one PACCS in one revenue village. It is further submitted that the impugned corrigendum has been issued to regularise 47 PACCS in different villages in Shirur by giving retrospective effect and the impugned corrigendum is issued for political reason and in violation of model code of conduct which was in force in view of the ensuing elections to zilla parishad and panchayat samiti. Petitioner further submitted that the changes sought to be made by way of impugned corrigendum does not fall within the meaning of the term “Corrigendum”. Petitioner further submitted that the decision of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.1747 of 2013 and 1164 of 2017 interpreting clause (1) of Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013 having attained finality, the impugned corrigendum runs foul of the law laid down therein. Petitioner further relied upon the decision in the case of Shikshak Bharti Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 241 and Ashwin Prafulla Pimpalwar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 1992 (2) BOMCR 280, in support of its submissions and prayed for