Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Anant Gunvantrao Sable vs State Of Maharashtra . on 9 December, 2016
Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, N.V. Ramana
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.12060 OF 2016
(Arising from SLP(C) No.31424/2016)
Anant Gunvantrao Sable ..Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties. The factual position has been noticed by the High Court in paragraph 13 of the impugned order, which is extracted hereunder:
“Hon'ble Minister, while considering the Revision Application preferred by the respondent no.5 has found that by virtue of the premises jointly owned by the petitioner and his brother being let out to the Bank, the petitioner had received benefit in said transaction. This conclusion arrived at is based on facts noticed by the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 13th February, 2015. The finding recorded by the Hon'ble Minister cannot be said to be contrary either to the record or to the spirit of Section 73CA(i)(vi) of the said Act. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Nanaji Ganuji Bhokre (supra) pertains to disqualification under the provisions of Section 73FF(v) of the said Act and hence same does not assist the case of the petitioner. The observations Signature Not Verified of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaya Bachhan (supra) Digitally signed by PARVEEN KUMAR Date: 2017.02.22 and learned Single Judge in Aruna Bhagwant Tiple (supra) support the submissions made on behalf of 16:30:21 IST Reason:
the respondent no.5.” 2 The question that arises for consideration is, whether the order of disqualification could be passed against the appellant under Section 73CA(1)(vi) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which is extracted hereunder:
“73CA Disqualification of committee and its members (1) Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder in relation to the disqualification of being member of a committee, no person shall be eligible for being appointed, nominated, elected, co-opted or, for being a member of a committee, if he-
(i) xxx xxx xxx
(ii) xxx xxx xxx
(iii) xxx xxx xxx
(iv) xxx xxx xxx
(v) xxx xxx xxx
(vi) is a salaried employee of any society (other than a society of employees themselves) or holds any office of profit under any society, except when he holds or is appointed to the office of a Managing Director or any other office declared by the State Government by general or special order not to disqualify its holder or is entitled to be or is nominated as functional director on the committee of a society under sub-section (2) of Section 72A.” Having given our thoughtful consideration to the ingredients of clause (vi) of sub-section 1 of Section 73CA of the Act, we are satisfied, that the factual position noticed by the High Court in the impugned order, could not have resulted in the disqualification of the appellant. The order passed by the High Court is accordingly set aside. As a corollary to the conclusion 3 recorded hereinabove, the disqualification of the appellant is set aside.
The instant appeal is accordingly allowed.
….....................J. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR] NEW DELHI; ….....................J. DECEMBER 09, 2016. [N.V. RAMANA] 4 ITEM NO.62 COURT NO.2 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 31424/2016 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23/09/2016 in WP No. 6102/2015 passed by the High Court Of Bombay At Nagpur) ANANT GUNVANTRAO SABLE Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T.) Date : 09/12/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, Adv.
Mr. Anshuman Animesh, Adv.
Mr. Nipun Katyal, Adv.
for M/s. S.M. Jadhav & Co.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Gagan Sanghi, Adv. No.5 for Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kumar) Assistant Registrar AR-cum-PS
[signed order is placed on the file]