Bombay High Court
Bajarang Labour Cooperative Society, ... vs Divisional Joint Registrar Of ... on 8 January, 2016
Author: Z.A. Haq
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp5249.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO .5249 OF 2014
Bajarang Labour Co-operative Society,
Mahagaon (Z), Tahsil-Hingna,
District-Nagpur, through its Secretary. .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Nagpur.
2) District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Nagpur.
3) Nagpur District Labour Co-operative Societies
Federation Ltd., through its President,
Nagpur, Taluka Nagpur, District Nagpur. .... RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO .5250 OF 2014
Renuka Labour Co-operative Society,
Mohagaon Zilpi, Tahsil-Hingna,
District-Nagpur, through its Secretary. .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2016 00:00:59 :::
2 wp5249.14
2) District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Nagpur.
3) Nagpur District Labour Co-operative Societies
Federation Ltd., through its President,
Nagpur, Taluka Nagpur, District Nagpur. .... RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO .5251 OF 2014
Bahubali Labour Co-operative Society,
Telkadi, Tahsil-Parsheoni,
District-Nagpur, through its Secretary. .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Nagpur.
2) District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Nagpur.
3) Nagpur District Labour Co-operative Societies
Federation Ltd., through its President,
Nagpur, Taluka Nagpur, District Nagpur. .... RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO .5252 OF 2014
Bumiputra Labour Co-operative Society,
Mangarul, Tahsil-Hingna,
District-Nagpur, through its Secretary. .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2016 00:00:59 :::
3 wp5249.14
1) Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Nagpur.
2) District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Nagpur.
3) Nagpur District Labour Co-operative Societies
Federation Ltd., through its President,
Nagpur, Taluka Nagpur, District Nagpur. .... RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO .5253 OF 2014
Chitamani Labour Co-operative Society Ltd.,
Mohagaon Zilpi, Tahsil-Hingna,
District-Nagpur, through its Secretary. .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Nagpur.
2) District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Nagpur.
3) Nagpur District Labour Co-operative Societies
Federation Ltd., through its President,
Nagpur, Taluka Nagpur, District Nagpur. .... RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO .5254 OF 2014
Seeta Labour Co-operative Society,
Karandala, Tahsil-Umred,
District-Nagpur, through its Secretary. .... PETITIONER
::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2016 00:00:59 :::
4 wp5249.14
VERSUS
1) Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Nagpur.
2) District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Nagpur.
3) Nagpur District Labour Co-operative Societies
Federation Ltd., through its President,
Nagpur, Taluka Nagpur, District Nagpur.
ig .... RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO .5255 OF 2014
Govinda Labour Co-operative Society,
Ranbodi, Tahsil-Kuhi,
District-Nagpur, through its Secretary. .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Nagpur.
2) District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Nagpur.
3) Nagpur District Labour Co-operative Societies
Federation Ltd., through its President,
Nagpur, Taluka Nagpur, District Nagpur. .... RESPONDENTS
WITH
::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2016 00:00:59 :::
5 wp5249.14
WRIT PETITION NO .5256 OF 2014
Rajaram Labour Co-operative Society,
Tahsil-Bhivapur, District - Nagpur,
through its Secretary. .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Nagpur.
2) District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Nagpur.
3) Nagpur District Labour Co-operative Societies
Federation Ltd., through its President,
Nagpur, Taluka Nagpur, District Nagpur. .... RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO .5257 OF 2014
Gamaji Labour Co-operative Society,
Telkamptee, Tahsil-Kalmeshwar,
District-Nagpur, through its Secretary. .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Nagpur.
2) District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2016 00:00:59 :::
6 wp5249.14
3) Nagpur District Labour Co-operative Societies
Federation Ltd., through its President,
Nagpur, Taluka Nagpur, District Nagpur. .... RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO .5258 OF 2014
Dhivarama Labour Co-operative Society,
Telkamptee, Tahsil-Kalmeshwar,
District-Nagpur, through its Secretary.
ig .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Nagpur.
2) District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Nagpur.
3) Nagpur District Labour Co-operative Societies
Federation Ltd., through its President,
Nagpur, Taluka Nagpur, District Nagpur. .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri A.S. Kilor, Advocate for the petitioners,
Smt. S.S. Jachak & Shri V.P. Gangane, A.G.Ps. for the respondent Nos.1
and 2,
Shri P.C. Madkholkar, Advocate for the respondent No.3.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATED : 8
JANUARY, 2016.
th
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. These writ petitions can be disposed by common judgment ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2016 00:00:59 ::: 7 wp5249.14 as same issue is raised in all the petitions.
2. Heard Shri A.S. Kilor, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Shri P.C. Madkholkar, learned Advocate for the respondent No.3 and Smt. S.S. Jachak and Shri V.P. Gangane, learned Assistant Government Pleaders for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. The petitioners are the Labour Co-operative Societies registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1960). The petitioner societies applied to the respondent No.3-Nagpur District Labour Co-operative Societies Federation Limited requesting for grant of membership. It is the case of the petitioner societies that the respondent No.3-Federation had pointed out certain deficiencies in the applications submitted by the petitioner societies. According to the petitioner societies, they complied with the requirements and removed the deficiencies. According to the petitioner societies, the respondent No.3-Federation was required to communicate its decision on the applications submitted by the petitioner societies within sixty days as laid down by Section 23(1A) of the Act of 1960, however, as the decision was not communicated within stipulated time, the petitioner ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2016 00:00:59 ::: 8 wp5249.14 societies approached the District Deputy Registrar for declaration that they have acquired deemed membership. The District Deputy Registrar, by the order dated 08-08-2013, allowed the applications filed by the petitioner societies. The respondent No.3-Federation, being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Deputy Registrar, filed revisions before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies which are allowed by the impugned order.
4. The contention of the petitioner societies is that the District Deputy Registrar, while considering their claim under Section 23(1A) of the Act of 1960 exercised the powers of the Registrar as a delegatee and therefore, the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the revisions filed by the respondent No.3-Federation. Shri A.S. Kilor, learned Advocate for the petitioner societies has pointed out the notification issued by the State Government on 11-09-2012 delegating powers of the Registrar to the District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nagpur City (1) and to the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies Nagpur City (2). This notification shows that all powers of Registrar under the Act of 1960 and the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 except powers under the sections referred in ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2016 00:00:59 ::: 9 wp5249.14 column No.4 of the notification, are delegated to the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies. It is submitted that Section 23(1A) of the Act of 1960 is not referred in column No.4 of the notification and therefore, it cannot be disputed that the powers of the Registrar conferred by Section 23(1A) of the Act of 1960, are delegated to the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nagpur City (1) and (2). The learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that once the delegatee exercises the powers/authority, the powers of delegate are exhausted. It is further submitted that if the revisions filed by the respondent No.3-Federation before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies are held to be maintainable, then it will mean that the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, who is subordinate to the Registrar, is permitted to examine the legality and validity of the order which in the eye of law is deemed to be passed by the Registrar through his delegatee. The learned Advocate has further pointed out that the election of the respondent No.3-Federation are to be conducted for which electoral list is published and in view of the interim order passed by this Court, the names of the petitioner societies are included in the voters' list. It is prayed that the impugned order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar be set aside and the order passed by the District Deputy Registrar be restored.
::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2016 00:00:59 :::10 wp5249.14
5. Shri P.C. Madkholkar, learned Advocate for the respondent No.3 has submitted that the State Government has issued the notification dated 16-04-2001 conferring the powers of Registrars on Additional Registrars and Joint Registrars and the revisional powers of Registrars under Section 154 of the Act of 1960 can be exercised by the Additional Registrar or the Joint Registrar if the orders passed by the subordinate officers are challenged before them. It is further submitted that as per Section 154(1) of the Act of 1960, the revision would lie before the State Government only if the order which is challenged is passed by the Registrar, Additional Registrar or the Joint Registrar and if the order is passed by the subordinate officers, the revision would lie before the Registrar, Additional Registrar and the Joint Registrar as per Section 154 of the Act of 1960. In support of this submission, the learned Advocate for the respondent No.3-Federation has relied on the judgment given by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Shireen Sami Gadiali and another vs. Spenta Co.op.
Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and others reported in 2011(3) ALL MR 766.
On merits of the matter, Shri P.C. Madkholkar, learned Advocate for the respondent No.3 has submitted that the decision was not taken by the respondent No.3-Federation as the petitioner societies ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2016 00:00:59 ::: 11 wp5249.14 had not removed the deficiencies pointed out to them. According to him, the fact that the deficiencies were not removed by the petitioner societies is recorded in the order passed by the District Deputy Registrar also. It is submitted that as the decision was not taken by the respondent No.3-Federation, the applications filed by the petitioner societies making claim as per Section 23(1A) of the Act of 1960 were itself not maintainable. Alternatively, it is submitted that even if the petitioner societies' claim under Section 23(1A) of the Act of 1960 is accepted, the petitioner societies will acquire deemed membership from sixty days after 08-11-2012, when according to the petitioner societies they removed the deficiencies pointed out.
6. The learned Assistant Government Pleaders for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have adopted the submissions made by the respondent No.3-Federation.
7. In reply, Shri A.S. Kilor, learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that if it is accepted that the Divisional Joint Registrar can exercise the revisional powers to examine the legality of the order passed by the District Deputy Registrar as delegatee of the Registrar, the Divisional Registrar, in terms will be exercising the ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2016 00:00:59 ::: 12 wp5249.14 powers of review and not revision and the powers of review are not conferred on the Registrar or Divisional Joint Registrar. In support of the submission, the learned Advocate has relied on the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Behari Kunj Sahakari Awas Samiti and another vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1997) 7 SCC 37.
8. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the learned Assistant Government Pleaders, I find that the question as to whether a person becomes deemed member or otherwise has to be decided by the Registrar as per Section 23(1A) of the Act of 1960. However, the State Government has delegated the powers of Registrar to the District Deputy Registrar by the notification dated 11-09-2012 and this delegation is permissible as per Section 158 of the Act of 1960. The District Deputy Registrar while entertaining the applications filed by the petitioner-societies exercised the powers of the Registrar as a delegatee of the Registrar.
Section 158 of the Act of 1960 reads as under :
"158. Delegation of power of Registrar to (certain authorities and officers :
The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, and subject to such conditions (if any) as it may think fit to impose, delegate all or any of the powers ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2016 00:00:59 ::: 13 wp5249.14 of the Registrar under this Act to any federal authority or to an officer thereof (or to any other authority) (and such officer or authorities) shall work under the general guidance, superintendence and control of the Registrar) specified in the notification."
The provisions of Section 158 of the Act of 1960 lay down that the subordinate officer or authority exercising the powers of the Registrar has to work under the general guidance, superintendence and control of the Registrar. In this background, it cannot be accepted that the Divisional Joint Registrar, who is subordinate to the Registrar, can examine the legality and validity of the order which is passed by the delegatee acting under the general guidance, superintendence and control of the Registrar. Similar issue is considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment given in the case of Behari Kunj Sahakari Awas Samiti and another vs. State of U.P. and others.
9. The submission made by the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent No.3-Federation, relying on the judgment given by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Shireen Sami Gadiali and another vs. Spenta Co.op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and others, cannot be accepted. The issues referred to the Full Bench of this Court were different, which are as follows :
::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2016 00:00:59 :::14 wp5249.14 "2. The questions of law referred in Writ Petition No.6403 of 2010 are :
1. Whether Sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 gives concurrent jurisdiction to the Registrar and the State Government to exercise power ?
2. Whether the power of revision under Sub-
ig section (1) of Section 154 of the said Act can only be exercised once and cannot be exercised twice over ?"
3. The questions of law referred in Writ Petition No.7293 of 2010 are :
1. Whether the remedy under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is available to an aggrieved party as a matter of right ?
2. Whether the remedy available under Section 154 of the said Act can be said to be efficacious and adequate remedy ?"
The issue which is required to dealt with in the present petition is whether Divisional Joint Registrar can exercise the revisional jurisdiction to examine the legality of the order passed by the District Deputy Registrar (or any officer subordinate to Divisional Joint Registrar) as a delegatee of the Registrar. This issue was not under consideration of the Full Bench of this Court.
::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2016 00:00:59 :::15 wp5249.14
10. The submission made on behalf of the respondent No.3- Federation relying on the notification dated 07-08-1993 also cannot be accepted. The powers of Registrar can be delegated to the Additional Registrar or the Divisional Joint Registrar or any other officer, however, whether the Additional Registrar and the Divisional Joint Registrar can exercise revisional jurisdiction to examine the legality of the order passed by the subordinate officers exercising the powers of the Registrar as a delegatee, is the question and it is not open for the State Government to confer such powers on the Additional Registrar and the Divisional Joint Registrar, under the scheme of Section 154 of the Act of 1960.
11. In view of the above, it has to be held that the respondent No.1-Divisional Joint Registrar had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the revision applications filed by the respondent No.3- Federation. Consequently, the impugned order is required to be set aside and the order passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies dated 08-08-2013 has to be restored.
::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2016 00:00:59 :::16 wp5249.14
12. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
It is clarified that the legality of the order passed by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies is not examined by this Court and it will be open for the respondent No.3-Federation or any other person aggrieved by it, to raise challenge to it in appropriate proceedings, if so advised.
JUDGE pma ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2016 00:00:59 :::