WRIT PETITION NO. 1945 OF 2018

11th March 2020

Petitioner Counsel: Shri Gadhia
Respondent Counsel: Shri Ansari Shri A.M.Joshi
Act Name: Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960

Section :
Section 83 Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 Section 89-A Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 Section 91 Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960

Cases Cited :

JUDGEMENT

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. The complaint made by the petitioner in respect of financial irregularities committed by the respondent-Co-operative Society and thereby praying for inquiry under Section 83 and 89 A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 has been rejected by the District Deputy Registrar vide communication dated 5th January, 1997, on the ground that in absence of any documentary evidence produced by the petitioner, his complaint cannot be entertained and he may approach under Section 91 of the Co-operative Society Act.

3. The said communication dated 5th January, 2017, was challenged by the petitioner before the Divisional Joint Registrar who has rejected the said revision application by observing that the Divisional Joint Register has no jurisdiction to entertain such revision as the impugned order cannot be termed as an order. The said communication dated 20th December, 2017 is under challenged.

4. Heard Shri Gadhia learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ansari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Shri A.M.Joshi, learned A.G.P. for the respondent nos. 1 and 3.

5. Shri Gadhia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was working as a junior clerk at Head Office Nagpur of the Respondent No.2–Co-operative Society since 1991 and when he was posted at Narkhed Branch of the respondent no.2 Society during the period from 01.04.2002 to 31.12.2005, show cause notice has been served upon the petitioner for financial discrepancies noticed in the audit report. The petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 27th February, 2006, pending departmental inquiry and thereafter, he was dismissed on 11th April, 2011.

6. He submits that proceeding challenging the said dismissal is pending. However, while going through the record, he came across with some documents which show that the then Board of Directors have committed financial irregularities and the petitioner was made scapegoat in the matter. Therefore, he made complaint in this regard to the District Deputy Registrar.

7. He points out that inspite of the fact that as many as 13 irregularities have been pointed out in the complaint, no cognizance has been taken by the District Deputy Registrar and the petitioner was advised to avail remedy under Section 91 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. In a revision against same Divisional Joint Register refused to entertain the revision application. Thus, he prays for setting aside the impugned orders passed by the District Deputy Registrar as well as Divisional Joint Registrar.

8. Per contra, Shri Ansari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that under Section 83 and under Section 89-A of the of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, petitioner being ex-employee of the respondent society cannot ask for any such relief as claimed in the complaint.

9. Shri Ansari, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has drawn attention to this Court to the provision of Section 83 and Section 89-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 which read thus.
“83. Inquiry by Registrar
(1) The Registrar may suo motu, or, on the application of the one-fifth members of the society or on the basis of Special Report under the third proviso to sub-Section (5B) of Section 81, himself or by a person duly authorized by him in writing, in this behalf, hold an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial conditions of a society.
89-A. Power to inspect working of society.— (1) It shall be competent for the Registrar to inspect or cause to be inspected the working of any society to ensure that-
(a) the provisions of the Act, rules and byelaws of the society are being properly followed by the society;
(b) the records and books of accounts are kept in proper forms;
(c) the business of the society is being run on sound business principles;
(d) the society is following the co-operative principles and the directives or directions given by the State Government in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under :
(e) the returns as provided by Section 79 are submitted to the Registrar regularly and properly.

10. Admittedly, the petitioner was in service of the respondent-society as a Junior Clerk and detailed inquiry was conducted against him, he was terminated from service. Proceeding filed against dismissal is pending. Even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that there are financial irregularities committed by the Members of the Society who were in Management during the period 2003-2005, under the provision of Section 83, such request at the behest of dismissed employee or former employee cannot be entertained.

11. As far as Section 89-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is concerned, the statute has empowered the Registrar for inspection of the record of the society, however, it is not a proceeding which he shall initiate at the request of same person or any member of the society.

12. The provisions of Section 89-A of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 empowers the Registrar to inspect or cause to be inspected the working of any society as provided under the said provision.

13. Thus, there is no further revision or appeal is available to any person in case of non-acceptance of any such request by Registrar under Section 89-A of the of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

14. Thus, according to me, the District Deputy Registrar as well as Divisional Joint Registrar both have rightly rejected the request of the petitioner.

15. In view of the observations made above, I do not find any substance in the petition.

16. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that petitioner may avail any other remedies as available under the law.

17. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.