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

2023 Supreme(Guj) 1319

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.
Valsad District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. Vasudhara Dairy – Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Secretary (Appeals) – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15604 of 2022 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15607 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15610 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15613 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15615 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15616 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15618 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15621 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15623 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15625 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18014 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18015 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18016 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18017 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18018 of 2022
Decided On : 29-11-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. V.C. Vaghela With Mr. Dilip B. Rana, Mr Dipan Desai, MS Nidhi Vyas, Assistant Government Pleader, NOTICE SERVED BY DS, Mr. V.C. Vaghela With Mr. Dilip B. Rana, Mr Meet M. Thakkar, Assistant Government Pleader, Mr Niraj Sharma, Assistant Government Pleader, Ms Krushita D. Dave, Assistant Government Pleader.

Previous sanction under Section 71 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 is a prerequisite for cooperative societies' investments, and post facto approval cannot be validated.

Headnote:(A) Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 - Section 71 - Refusal to grant permission for transactions entered into by cooperative society without previous sanction - The petitioner argued that the requirement of sanction does not apply, whereas the respondents affirmed it was mandatory. The court found that the Registrar’s previous sanction is a prerequisite for investment by societies, and post facto permission cannot be granted. (Paras 2-12, 16-20)

(B) Administrative law - Natural justice - The court concluded that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to present its case in the appeal to the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) and was not prejudiced by not being heard at the Registrar's level. (Paras 21-22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner union, a cooperative society engaged in dairy production and marketing, sought retrospective sanction for various land investments made from 1981 to 2019, which was denied based on non-compliance with mandatory sanctions under the Act.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the previous sanction was necessary for the petitioner's investments and that the refusal to grant post facto permission was justified.

Issues: The core issue was whether the transactions required prior sanction under the Act and if any procedural lapse warranted remittance for reconsideration.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without previous sanction required by law, the authority's refusal to grant post facto permission was valid and emphasized that statutes do not support granting retrospective approval.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. common issue raised in multiple petitions. (Para 2 , 3)
2. background on the petitioner union's transactions and issues. (Para 4)
3. arguments presented by the petitioner regarding permissions. (Para 5)
4. court's observations on the necessity of prior sanctions. (Para 6 , 7 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. court observations on the necessity of prior sanctions for investments. (Para 11)
6. discussion on the application of laws to the case. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
7. final dismissal of petitions with no order as to costs. (Para 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT :

(Sangeeta K. Vishen, J.)

Since the issue raised in all the captioned writ petitions is common, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common oral judgment.

2. By these petitions, the petitioner union has prayed for quashing and setting aside the orders, all dated 12.05.2022 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Appeals) Agriculture, Farmers’ Welfare and Co-operation Department (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent no.1”) so also orders, all dated 15.01.2021 passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies refusing to grant permission under the provisions of Section 71 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1961”).

3. The issue revolves around the previous sanction of the Registrar under the provisions of Section 71 of the Act of 1961. According to the petitioner union, it being a marketing society, previous sanction was not necessitated considering the fact that the provisions of clause (ff) of sub-section (1) of Section 71 of the Act of 1961 would not attract the transactions entered into by the petitioner union. As against this, while refusing the request of the petitioner union for previous sanction, the stand taken by the respondent authorities, is that the Section contemplates previous sanction and not a post facto sanction. The said refusal, has given rise to the filing of the captioned writ petitions.

4. Perceptibly, almost 15 transactions have been entered into by the petitioner union for the period ranging from the year 1981 to 2019. Details whereof, are indicated in the Resolution no.3 dated 24.12.2019 passed by the petitioner union and produced on the record (page 51 of Special Civil Application no.15604 of 2022). Since there were 15 transactions, 15 writ petitions have been filed. As aforesaid, issue involved in all the writ petitions is common barring minor variation in factual aspects i.e. the details of the transactions. Thus, facts are derived from Special Civil Application no.15604 of 2022 and are set out hereinbelow:

4.1 The petitioner union is a federal society registered under the provisions of the Act of 1961 with area of operation extended to the Districts namely Navsari, Valsad and Dang. First plant of the petitioner union was established in the year 1981, and thereafter other and 1105 primary Co-operative Societies, are its members. It is also the case of the petitioner union that it is procuring 8.5 lakh liters of milk from the primary level milk producing societies every day. Petitioner union processes the milk into different products namely milk pouches, butter, ghee, paneer, curd, butter milk, ice-cream etc. and sells it in the open market through apex society known as Gujarat State Co-operative Milk Federation in the brand name of ‘AMUL’. The petitioner union fetches high price of the milk produced by the milk producers and tries to improve the life of poor and tribal farmers residing in distant and tribal areas.

4.2 The petitioner union, since the year 1981 till date, had purchased various parcels of land for the purpose of constructing the plant or expanding the project. Details of the investments made from the year 1981 to 2019, are indicated in the Resolution no.3 dated 24.12.2019 passed by the petitioner union and produced on the record (page 51 of Special Civil Application no.15604 of 2022). According to the petitioner union, in the year 2014-2015, audit took place and audi

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