WRIT PETITION NO. 4380/2016

31st July 2019

Petitioner Counsel: Shri P. V. Vaidya
Respondent Counsel: Shri A. M. Balpande
Act Name: Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Act, 1960 Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Rules, 1961

Section :
Section 102 Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Act, 1960 Section 154 Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Act, 1960

Cases Cited :

JUDGEMENT

1. Rule. Heard finally considering the short issue involved.

2. The petitioner which is a Co­operative Society registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, 'the said Act') is aggrieved by the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co­operative Society under Section 154 of the said Act dismissing the said revision application filed by the petitioner and confirming the interim order dated 31.12.2010 passed by the Assistant Registrar under Section 102 of the said Act.

3. The principal ground of challenge is that the interim order passed under Section 102(1) of the said Act was required to be communicated to the petitioner­Society as per the provisions of Section 102(2) of the said Act so as to enable the Society to submit its explanation within a period of one month from the date of issuance of such order. It is submitted that Rule 87 of the Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Rules, 1961 prescribes the mode of communication of such interim order to the concerned society. As the interim order passed under Section 102(1) of the said Act was not communicated to the petitionerSociety which fact is clear from the information supplied by the Information Officer on 23.03.2016, its entire exercise is vitiated. Though this challenge was raised by filing the revision application, the same has been dismissed.

4. Heard Shri P.V.Vaidya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.M.Balpande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1. The provisions of Section 102(1) of the said Act enable the Registrar to pass an interim order of winding up of a Society. If such interim order is passed, the Registrar is required to communicate the same to the Society concerned as per Section 102(2) of the said Act. The interim order so passed is required to be communicated with a view to grant an opportunity to the Society to be heard before passing the final order. Rule 87 of the said Rules stipulates said communication to be sent by registered post with acknowledgement due. In the information supplied to the petitioner­Society by the Office of the Assistant Registrar, it has been clearly stated that the interim order that was passed on 31.12.2010 was not supplied to any party nor was it sent to any party. In the light of this position, it is clear that the petitioner­Society did not have any opportunity to seek vacation of the interim order in terms of Section 102(2) of the said Act. This point was raised before the Revisional Authority but it has not been taken into consideration. As the aforesaid aspect goes to the root of the matter, it is clear that the impugned order stands vitiated on account of non­ compliance of the mandatory provisions.

5. In that view of the matter, the order dated 31.12.2010 passed by the Assistant Registrar under Section 102 (1) of the said Act as well as the order dated 03.12.2015 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar is set aside. The Assistant Registrar is free to take such steps as are necessary if he intends to proceed under Section 102 of the said Act by following the prescribed procedure. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.