Bombay High Court
Juhu Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 24 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(5)BOMCR740, 2004(2)MHLJ779
Author: R.M.S Khandeparkar
Bench: R.M.S. Khandeparkar
JUDGMENT R.M.S Khandeparkar, J.
1. Heard. Rule. The respondents waive service. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing.
2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 21-11-2002 passed in the Revisional Application No. 234 of 2001 by the respondent. No. 2 whereby the matter has been remanded to the respondent No. 3 on the ground that the respondent No. 3 has passed two contradictory orders -- one in favour of the petitioner and the other in favour of the respondent No. 4, the two orders being dated 10-4-2000 and 30-3-2001.
3. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and on perusal of the records, it is apparent that the order dated 10-4-2000 was to the effect of rejection of the application under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 solely on the ground that the application filed by the petitioner did not disclose the necessary details regarding the claim and with the observation that "Actually it is necessary for the Society to provide the complete details as to from when and for which purpose amount is due and payable." and further that "Unless and until Society gives explanation as from when and for which purpose an amount of Rs. 18,997.35 is due and payable, till then the said amount and amount of Rs. 3,348.65 cannot be accepted.". Apparently, therefore, the application was dismissed by the order dated 10-4-2000 on account of incomplete information furnished by the party and without deciding any of the rights of the parties. Subsequent to the said order, the petitioner filed another application giving detail information regarding the amounts alleged to be due from the respondent No. 4 and prayed for necessary order under Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and it appears that the order came to be passed on 30-3-2001 on the said application which was sought to be challenged in the Revision Application No. 234 of 2001 by the respondent No. 4.
4. Plain reading of the impugned order discloses that the revisional authority, without application of its mind, merely by observing that "Respondent Dy. Registrar has passed two contradictory orders in one order in favour of present applicant in other in favour of present respondent society" has allowed the revision application and has set aside the orders. The said observation clearly discloses that the respondent No. 2 had not taken any pains to go through the orders dated 30-3-2001 and 10-4-2000. The said orders cannot be said to be contradictory or contrary to each other when the earlier order was only on account of failure on the part of the petitioner to furnish necessary details and without deciding any of the rights of the parties and without adjudicating the issue regarding the liability of the parties. Undoubtedly, such adjudication is apparent on the face of the order dated 30-3-2001. Whether it has been done in proper exercise of its jurisdiction or not has not been considered by the revisional authority. Whether the findings arrived at are borne out from the records or not has not been considered by the revisional authority. It has also not considered whether the appreciation of the materials appear to be in proper perspective or not. Evidently, the disposal of the revision application in the case in hand has been in a cavalier manner and without application of mind.
5. Undoubtedly, the proceedings before the revisional authority were filed under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The said provision of law clearly requires the revisional authority to examine the order impugned in the petition to satisfy itself as to the legality and propriety of the decision and also as to the legality of the proceedings wherein such order is passed. Apparently therefore, the revisional authority has to apply its mind on the said points and arrive at an appropriate finding in that regard before disposing the matter.
6. The term "legality and propriety" is to be found in various statutes while dealing with the subject of revisional powers of the authority under those statutes. While interpreting such term found in Section 61(1) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 in relation to powers of the Labour Court to examine the propriety or the legality of an order passed by an employer under the Standing Orders, it was held by the Apex Court in Babulal Nagar and Ors. v. Shree Synthetics Ltd. and Ors., that :--
"If therefore, the justice or the justness in relation to a legal proceedings where evidence is led is questioned and the authority is conferred with jurisdiction to examine the propriety of the order or decision that authority will have the same jurisdiction as the original authority to come to a different conclusion on the same set of facts. If any other view is taken the expression 'propriety' would lose all significance. The expression 'legality and propriety' has been used in various statutes where appellate or revisional jurisdiction is conferred upon a superior authority."
And further ruled that:--
"Therefore, it appears well-established that the Labour Court having jurisdiction to examine the legality and propriety of the order made by the employer under the standing order will have jurisdiction to examine the propriety of the order which will permit it to come to a conclusion different from the one to which the employer arrived at. Such being the amplitude of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court if upon a wrong view of ambit of its jurisdiction Labour Court approaches the matter as if it . exercises narrow revisional jurisdiction, the Industrial Court in revision can interfere on the ground of failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Labour Court or material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction."
7. In Moti Ram v. Suraj Bhan and Ors., , while considering the scope of the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, it was held by the Court that :--
"Under Section 15(5) the High Court has jurisdiction to examine the legality or propriety of the order under revision and that would clearly Justify the examination of the propriety or the legality of the finding made by the authorities in the present case about the requirement of the landlord under Section 13(3)(a)(iii)."
8. The power of the revisional authority is therefore much wider than the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. In such circumstances, when irregularity in an order of an authority acting under the said Act is brought to the notice of the revisional authority under Section 154, it becomes the duty of such revisional authority to apply its mind to the matter placed before it and to take appropriate decision thereon and not to dispose of the matter in a cavalier manner like the one in the case in hand.
9. It is also apparent that the matter was adjourned on number of occasions by the respondent No. 2 and only on the day when the representative of the petitioner was absent, the same was disposed of and, that too, on the grounds which are not borne out from the records. The order having been passed without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner of being heard in the matter and apparently discloses the same to be contrary to the materials on record, and clearly in arbitrary exercise of its jurisdiction, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
10. In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent No. 2 to decide the same afresh, after hearing the parties, in accordance with the provisions of law. The respondent No. 2 shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and in any event within three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court. The rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
11. All concerned to act on the ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate/P.S. of this Court as a true copy.