Bombay High Court
Kamini Bahu-Uddeshiya Sushikshit ... vs The Divisional Joint Registrar, ... on 29 October, 2018
Author: Rohit B. Deo
Bench: Rohit B. Deo
1 wp644.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.644 OF 2017
Kamini Bahu-Uddeshiya Sushikshit
Berojgar Sewa Sahakari Sanstha Limited
Bhandara, District Bhandara, through
its Secretary Shri Jayant S. Chaware,
C/o Deepak Mangar, Arun Watch Centre,
Sawari, Post-Jawarharnagar, District-
Bhandara. .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The Divisional Joint Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Sitabuldi,
Nagpur.
2) The Assistant Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Bhandara.
3) The Liquidator Shri D.R. Annapurne,
C/o District Special Auditor,
Co-operative Societies, Bhandara. .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri A.Z. Jibhkate, Counsel for the petitioner,
Shri N. Rao, A.G.P. for respondents 1 and 2,
None for respondent 3.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATED : 29 th
OCTOBER, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard Shri A.Z. Jibhkate, learned Counsel for the ::: Uploaded on - 30/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:07:26 ::: 2 wp644.17 petitioner and Shri N. Rao, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner-society is assailing the order dated 14-10- 2015 passed by respondent 2-Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhandra in purported exercise of powers under Section 102(1)(c)(iv) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act ("Act" for short) and the final order dated 17-11-2016 winding up the petitioner- society which is passed in exercise of powers under Section 102(2) of the Act. The specific case of the petitioner is that both, the interim order and the final order came to be passed without issuing notice to the petitioner-society.
4. The petitioner contends that the notices, if at all issued, are issued at the old address of the petitioner-society. The petitioner avers that the changed address was duly communicated to the Registrar by communication dated 20-9-2015 which is duly acknowledged.
5. Perusal of the affidavit-in-reply would reveal that there is ::: Uploaded on - 30/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:07:26 ::: 3 wp644.17 no specific denial by the respondents that such communication intimating the change of address was not received. The affidavit-in- reply states that due procedure for change of address was not followed. Perusal of Section 37 of the Act would show that the only requirement is that the intimation of the change in address must be communicated by the society to the Registrar within thirty days of such change.
6. In view of the irrefutable position on record, it is apparent that the notices which may have been issued by the authority were issued on the old address of the petitioner-society. Drastic power of winding up is exercised. Such power could not have been exercised without affording due opportunity to the petitioner-society for showing cause.
7. The orders impugned are unsustainable and are quashed.
8. Respondent 2 shall be at liberty to initiate fresh action, in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner- society, if so advised.
9. Rule is made absolute in the afore stated terms.
JUDGE adgokar ::: Uploaded on - 30/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/11/2018 01:07:26 :::