AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manish Pitale, J
Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.
In this Writ Petition notice was issued on 29th April, 2021 for final disposal. The learned AGP had waived service of notice on behalf of respondent
Nos.1 to 3 and 5. The office note shows that the respondent Nos.4 and 6 have been served. There is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.4
and 6, despite service of notice.
Mr. K. L. Dharmadhikari, learned AGP seeks adjournment to take instructions to file reply to the Writ Petition.
In response, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is urgency in the present Writ Petition and if the petition cannot be
disposed of today, the prayer for interim relief made in the present Writ Petition needs to be considered today itself.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by the impugned order, the respondent No.1 has erroneously granted stay to an order passed by
the Appellate Authority whereby an order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies disqualifying the petitioners as members of the
Managing Committee of the respondent No.4 Society had been set aside.
It is submitted that the Appellate Authority had correctly appreciated the statutory provisions, particularly Section 79-A of the Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, while holding that the order disqualifying the petitioners was not sustainable.
It is further submitted that due to the impugned interim stay order granted by the respondent No.1, grave prejudice is suffered by the petitioners, as
well as the respondent No.4 Society, because election to the District Central Cooperative Bank is due and as a result of the impugned interim stay
granted by respondent No.1, the respondent No.4 Society is unable to send its representative to the District Central Cooperative Bank.
A perusal of Section 79-A of the aforesaid Act, shows that power to issue certain direction in public interest is vested with the State Government.
In the event, the Registrar is satisfied that such direction issued by the State Government has not been complied with, appropriate orders can be
passed, including disqualification of member of the Managing Committee of a Society. In the present case, the Appellate Authority while setting aside
the order of disqualification of the petitioners, specifically recorded that directions, non compliance of which was alleged, were not issued by the State
Government and instead in the present case they were issued by the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies. By referring Section 79-A of the
aforesaid Act, the Appellate Authority found on merits in favour of the petitioners.
The respondent No.1 is considering a revision application filed by the respondent No.6 (original complainant) under Section 154 of the aforesaid
Act. Sub Section (3A) of Section 154 of the aforesaid Act provides that the revisional authority (respondent No.1 herein) can pass interim orders to
prevent the ends of justice being defeated.
A perusal of the order dated 24 th March, 2021, passed by the respondent No.1 shows that prima facie the respondent No.1 failed to appreciate
the scope of Section 154(3A) of the aforesaid Act, while granting interim stay of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, as also other provisions
of the said Act.
Since the petitioners have brought to the notice of this Court that there is urgency in the matter, as election to the District Central Cooperative
Bank is immediately due and if stay of the impugned order is not granted, grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioners and respondent No.4
Society, this Court is inclined to pass interim order in favour of the petitioners herein.
In view of the above, list the present Writ Petition for further consideration on 28th June, 2021. The respondents may file their reply in the
meantime.
In the meanwhile and until further orders, there shall be interim stay in terms of prayer clause (B).
Needless to say, the respondent No.1 is at liberty to take up and dispose of the revision application filed by the respondent No.6.