Co-operative society without government share capital not an 'establishment' under Reservation Act despite financial aids or concessions; reservation policy inapplicable as legislative intent requires shareholding.

Judgment (Per : Kamal Khata, J) :-

1) By this Petition, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the validity and legality of (i) the Government Resolution dated 1^st April, 2004, (ii) the consequential Order passed by the Divisional Deputy Registrar, Co-operative (Milk Societies) dated 7^th April, 2006 and (iii) the Order dated 1^st March, 2016 passed by the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies (Milk).

2) The short question that arises for determination in the present Petition is whether the Petition falls within the ambit of an “establishment” under the Maharashtra State Public Services [Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward Category and Other Backward Classes], Act, 2001 (State Public Services Act).

3) Mr. Jagtap, learned Advocate for the Petitioner draws our attention to Section 2(c) of the Maharashtra State Public Services Act, which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:

“Section 2(c).- “establishment” means any office of the Government or of a local authority or statutory authority constituted under any Act of the State Legislature for the time being in force, or a University or a Company, a Corporation or a Co-operative Society in which share capital is held by the Government or any Government aided Institutions.”

3.1) For ready reference, the explanation to the said provision is reproduced hereinbelow:

“Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause the expression “Government aided institution” shall also include prior to coming into force of this Act of thereafter, aid in other monetary concessions by Government, or is recognised, licenced, supervised or controlled by Government.”

4) A plain reading of the definition of the term ‘establishment’ indicates that it includes:

(i) any office of the Government or of a local authority or statutory authority constituted under any Act of the state legislature for the time being enforced,

(ii) a University,

(iii) a Company, 

(iv) a Corporation,

(v) a Co-operative society in which share capital is held by the Government, and

(vi) any Government-aided Institution.

5) Mr. Jagtap submits that, in the Petitioner co-operative society the Government does not hold any share capital. Consequently, according to him, the definition of ‘establishment’ is not attracted to the Petitioner.

He submits that the Explanation, which expands the scope of the term ‘establishment’ to include Government-aided Institutions or Institutions which have received aid or other monetary concessions from the Government or is recognized, licensed, supervised or controlled by the Government, prior to or after the Act came into force, has no applicability to the Petitioner.

5.1) He further submits that, the Government Resolution (GR) dated 11^th February, 2014 is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. According to him, the Respondents have erroneously interpreted the provisions of the Act and have incorrectly classified the Petitioner as an entity to which the provisions of the State Public Services Act applies.

5.2) It is further contended that, the land in question was not gifted but was purchased by the Petitioner from the State Government at market value. He submits that the mere receipt of certain form of aid from the Government would not by itself, bring the Petitioner within the ambit of an “establishment’ under the State Public