Bombay High Court
Chandrapur District Gittikhadan Mazur ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Sec. Coop. ... on 12 July, 2016
Author: Prasanna B.Varale
Bench: Prasanna B.Varale
1 wp6948.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6948 OF 2015
Chandrapur District Gittikhadan Mazur
Sahakari Societies Federation Limited,
through its Chairman, shri Ramesh Baliramji
Kalsarpe, having its office at behind
Kannamwar Bhavan, Block No.10, Old
Warora Naka, Behind Patrakar Bhavan,
Chandrapur, District Chandrapur. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra, through the
Secretary, Cooperative Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Secretary, Department of Co-
operation, Marketing and Handlooms,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
3. The Commissioner for Cooperation and
Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
Maharashtra State, Central Building,
Pune - 01.
4. The District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, Administrative Building, 2nd
Floor, Chandrapur.
5. The Chandrapur District Contract Labour
Cooperative Societies Federation Limited,
Chandrapur, through its Secretary/ Manager,
having its office at Kalam Plaza Apartment,
Behind Bhavanjibai School, Near Dr.
Bhukte's Clinic, Vivek Nagar, Chandrapur,
District Chandrapur. ... RESPONDENTS
....
Shri A.H. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri V.P. Maldhure, Addl. Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for respondent No.5.
....
::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:04:30 :::
2 wp6948.15
CORAM : PRASANNA B.VARALE, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 14TH MARCH, 2016.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 12TH JULY, 2016.
JUDGMENT :
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. Shri V.P. Maldhure, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, the learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent No.5.
2. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the order passed by the State through the Secretary dated 04th December, 2015, thereby quashing and setting aside the directions issued by the District Deputy Registrar/respondent No.4 dated 07th February, 2013 for forwarding the list of the works available for allotment to the societies.
3. It is submitted by Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the federation of the societies of labours engaged in metal stones. The department of Cooperation vide communication dated 31.03.2005, granted stay for registration of the labour societies. It was intimated that the proposal received for ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:04:30 ::: 3 wp6948.15 registration of the new labours societies be submitted before the government for necessary sanction/approval. Vide order dated 07th November, 2008 subject to certain conditions namely considering the number of the labour societies and the work available, the stay was vacated. Certain guidelines were issued including the verification of the list of members of labour societies, opening of the bank accounts of the members of the labour societies in the nearest District Central Cooperative Bank, the amounts to be deposited in the respective bank accounts of the members of the society and allotment of the works through the Work Allotment Committee. It was stated in those guidelines that if it is found that certain works are allotted without the approval of the works committee to society, the society be included in the black list. The underlying object of the guidelines is also reflected namely registration of the real/genuine societies after verification. For the purposes of considering the controversy involved in the petition, it would be necessary to refer to clause 14 of the guidelines. Clause 14 reads that, for the labour societies engaged in loading and unloading of the material. The societies of the skilled and technical labours namely engaged in electrical work, plumbing work and engaged in metal stones, the conditions of the circular would not apply. It is further stated that such societies must have a specific mention of their peculiar works and while allotting the work, the work allotment committee should allot the peculiar works to those peculiar societies of the labour (emphasis supplied). The said circular was ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:04:30 ::: 4 wp6948.15 subsequently clarified by issuing corrigendum dated 31st May, 2010.
Perusal of the said circular shows that clause 14 was modified to the effect that as the societies of the labours engaged in loading and unloading work and the Cooperative Societies of the labours are covered under same classification and the byelaws are identical. The power to register the societies of the labours engaged in loading and unloading was granted to the Divisional Committee. It was further stated that while registering such societies, the procedure under Government Circular dated 21.12.2004 be followed.
4. Being aggrieved by the modification in the byelaws and the corrigendum issued, the petitioner was before this Court by preferring Writ Petition No. 3250 of 2012. It was the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner societies work prohibited from undertaking the other works which were to be distributed amongst the labour cooperative societies on the ground that the petitioner is the federation of the labours engaged in specialized type of work. The petition was opposed by the respondents in Writ Petition and also by the State. This Court observed thus, "We find that this issue can more conveniently be looked into by the Commissioner, Cooperative Societies, who has issued communication dated 06th December, 2008. For said purpose, we direct petitioner to appear before the Commissioner for Cooperation, Cooperative societies, Maharashtra State, Pune on 22nd October, 2012 and to abide by its further ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:04:30 ::: 5 wp6948.15 instructions in the matter. Said authority shall, after undertaking necessary scrutiny in the matter, find out whether restriction as imposed under Circular dated 06th December, 2008 is proper or then petitioner society is free and can be allotted even general labour work. Said decision shall be taken within a further period of four weeks. Necessary policy decision/circular in that pursuance of the decision, shall be issued to all local bodies including respondent No.2 and 3 within a further period of three weeks. With these observations and directions, we dispose of petition. No costs".
5. In view of the order of this Court, the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies issued communication dated 09.11.2012 and thereby issued directions to the District Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Chandrapur that the societies of the petitioner-federation be allotted the works considering the guidelines of work allotment committee. On the basis of the said communication, the District Deputy Registrar, Chandrapur issued a circular and directed that the list of the available works be forwarded to the petitioner-federation. The material placed on record shows that at the instance of one of the Members of Legislative Assembly, the Hon'ble Minister granted stay to the directions issued by the District Deputy Registrar and further directed to convene a meeting. The said order of the Hon'ble Minister was challenged before this Court by the petitioner by preferring Writ Petition No. 5166 of 2014.
::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:04:30 :::6 wp6948.15 This Court initially on 24th September, 2014, by observing that challenge to the order was on the ground of failure to observe the principle of natural justice, granted interim relief. The petition was finally decided on 29th June, 2015. the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister was set aside. The proceedings were remanded back to the State Government for considering the same afresh after hearing the petitioner in the proceedings. The copy of the order dated 29th June, 2015 is placed on record at Annexure-F. The revision was heard by the revisional authority. It was observed by the revisional authority that the communication dated 09.11.2012 and the circular issued by the District Deputy Registrar dated 07.02.2013 were contrary to the circular dated 06.12.2008. It was also observed by the revisional authority that the allotment of work to the members societies of the petitioner-federation would cause a prejudice to the revision/ petitioner. Thus, by order dated 04.12.204, the revision was allowed and the communication dated 09.11.2012 and the circular dated 07.02.2013 were cancelled. The said order is under challenge in the instant petition.
6. Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the federation is the union of various societies of the labour working in the metal stone works. It was further the submission of the learned Counsel that these societies were named and styled as "Societies of the Labours" engaged in metal stones works (Gittikhadan Majoor Sahakari Sanstha). These societies were classified under the larger canvas ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:04:30 ::: 7 wp6948.15 of labour societies. Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, by inviting my attention to the registration certificate granted to the petitioner-federation, submitted that the object of the federation is to protect the interest of the members of the societies. He also submitted that the byelaws of the federation were amended. It was stated in the amended byelaws that the classification of the federal society would be the producer society and the sub classification would be the federal society of the industrial labours. Shri Patil further submitted that clause 11 of the amended byelaws refere to the object of the federal societies and that is to supervise and verify the work being allotted to the members societies to verify that the work is completed within stipulated period and to coordinate between the department allotting the work and the society undertaking the work. The learned Counsel also submitted that the circular dated 06.12.2008 provided the guidelines for registration of the labour cooperative societies. He also submitted that as clause 14 of the said circular was prejudicial in the interest of justice, the same was modified and a corrigendum dated 31st May, 2010 was issued.
7. Shri Patil also relies on the order dated 07th September, 2012 in Writ Petition No. 3250 of 2012 to submit that a grievance was raised before this Court about the demand of the allotment of work to the societies and prohibiting the societies to undertake the work on the ground that the societies are engaged in a peculiar type of work. The learned Counsel ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:04:30 ::: 8 wp6948.15 again submitted that the Commissioner of Cooperation and the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, by communication dated 09.11.2012, issued directions to the District Deputy Registrar for allotting the work considering the fact that there were nearly thousands of the members of various societies and those societies were of the economical weaker section of the societies and the object was to rising the living standard of the members by providing/allotting the works to the members societies.
Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the communication of the Commissioner, Cooperative Societies, the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chandrapur issued the circular with a direction to make available the list of the work for allotment to the federation society. He further submitted that the respondent No.5 by seeking intervention of the local MLA, approached the Minister and the Hon'ble Minister granted stay to the circular. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 presented revision before the Hon'ble Minister, Cooperative Societies and though the petitioner-society was a necessary party, the petitioner-
society was not made party to the revision.
8. Shri Patil, the learned Counsel submitted that behind back of the petitioner, the revision was allowed by the Hon'ble Minister and as such the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing writ petition in challenge to the order of the Hon'ble Minister and in view of the order passed by this Court, the matter was remitted back to the revisional ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:04:30 ::: 9 wp6948.15 authority. He further submitted that the revisional authority mechanically passed the order without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner/ society. It was submitted that the grievance was raised before the revisional authority that the revision was at a belated stage and the revision/applicant failed to submit any application for condonation of delay with justifiable reasons and the revisional authority without considering this objection, allowed the revision. Shri Patil, the learned Counsel further submitted that merely because the members societies of the petitioner-federation carry the name of the society as labour societies of Gittikhadan Majoor Sahakari Sanstha, the society cannot be prevented from undertaking the works be allotted to the other labour societies. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the members of the petitioner societies are at par with the other labour societies. He further submitted that the petitioner federation has also placed on record that the various labour societies were allotted works and even some societies were allotted the work more than the prescribed limits. He also submitted that as all the members of the societies of the petitioner federation are already registered societies, there may not have been a prohibition for allotment of the work under clause 14 of the government circular dated 06.12.2008.
Thus, on these submissions, Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for setting aside the order impugned in the present petition.
::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:04:30 :::10 wp6948.15
9. Per contra, Shri Bhandarkar, the learned Counsel for respondent No.5 and Shri Maldhure, the learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4 support the order impugned in the present petition.
10. Shri Bhandarkar, the learned Counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that the challenge to the order passed by the revisional authority impugned in the present petition is unsustainable. He further submitted that the circular dated 06.12.2008 refers to various guidelines and clause 14 of the said circular makes it very clear that for registration of the societies namely the labours societies engaged in loading and unloading for the societies of the skilled and technical labours, which are already registered, the conditions imposed in the circular would not be applicable. He submitted that clause 14 also makes it very clear that the name of such societies must refer to their peculiar type of work in which they are engaged. Shri Bhandarkar, the learned Counsel further submitted that clause 14 further makes it clear that the work allotment committee shall allot the peculiar work to the societies engaged in peculiar works. He also submitted that clause 14 shall give only liberal scope for registration of the societies and deal with the requirement of forwarding the proposal to the Divisional Committee. The learned Counsel submitted that clause 14 empowers the registration authority to register the societies and the requirement of proposal routed through the Divisional Committee was relaxed. Shri Bhandarkar, the learned Counsel for respondent No.5 then ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:04:30 ::: 11 wp6948.15 submitted that even the corrigendum dated 31st May, 2010 was for treating the societies of Gittikhadan Majoors at par with the other labour societies for registration. He further submitted that the communication dated 09.11.2012 and circular dated 07.02.2013 were causing a serious prejudice to respondent No.5-federal society. The learned Counsel submitted that, by raising the grievance, the respondent submitted a revision before the Hon'ble Minister and the Hon'ble Minister passed the order dated 17.07.2014. Shri Bhandarkar further submitted that as the petitioner was not party to the said revision, this Court, by its order, directed the revisional authority to decide the revision afresh by hearing the petitioner federal society. The learned Counsel submitted that the revisional authority considering the grievance raised by the petitioner, allowed the revision and no error is committed by the revisional authority.
11. On hearing both the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, I find considerable merit in the submission of Shri Bhandarkar, the learned Counsel for respondent No.5.
Though it was an attempt made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to submit that the petitioner federation of the members societies engaged in the metal stone work is at par with the other labour societies. Clause 14 of circular dated 06.12.2008 mandates the authorities for allotment of the work to the members societies of the petitioner and the byelaws of the federation and subsequent amended byelaws make it clear that the ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:04:30 ::: 12 wp6948.15 members of the petitioner-federation are entitled for allotment of the work. I am unable to accept the submission of Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. As it is rightly submitted by Shri Bhandarkar, the learned Counsel for respondent No.5, clause 14 of the said circular specifically states that the work allotment committee shall allot the peculiar work to the societies engaged in that peculiar type of work.
Perusal of clause 14 shows that the condition of registration of the society with prior approval from the Divisional Committee is relaxed. Clause 14 states that for registration of such societies namely the societies engaged in loading and unloading and these societies of skilled and technical labours for these societies, the conditions for the registration would not be applicable. On perusal of the amended byelaws referred to by Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it reveals that the petitioner-
federation societies referred to the classification as the producer society and sub classification is the industrial labour societies. The perusal of the byelaws of the members societies that the object of this society is to see that by receiving tenders of various works, the members are engaged in some work and they are not deprived from the work. The object is also to substantially rise the economic condition of the members. The other object is to purchase the necessary material and establish the work places, godowns and making available the means of transportation. The order passed by the revisional authority impugned in the petition if perused, it reveals that the grievance of the revision/applicant i.e. respondent No.5 ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:04:30 ::: 13 wp6948.15 before this Court was that there are 91 members of the respondent No.5/Society. Out of them, 25 members societies were deprived of any work allotment till date of filing the revision and if the works are allotted to the members societies of the petitioner federation as per the instructions of 09.11.2012, the revision applicant i.e. respondent No.5 before this Court, would be certainly adversely affected.
12. There is also merit in the submission of Shri Bhandarkar, the learned Counsel for respondent No.5 that the members societies of respondent No.5 are of such members who are engaged in building and construction work. He submitted that the construction works are allotted to the members societies of respondent No.5 and if such work is allotted to the members petitioner federation, the same would result in the petitioner federation entering in the domain of respondent No.5-society. There is also considerable merit in the submission of Shri Bhandarkar that clause 14 is aimed at equal distribution of the work to the societies working in the respective fields. He also submitted that the reference in clause 14 for a clear indication in the name of the societies of its peculiar field is to achieve the object that the typical nature of the work available should be allotted to such a society engaged in that typical work. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-federation society is of such members societies wherein the members are engaged in a peculiar work. Though Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to submit that merely ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:04:30 ::: 14 wp6948.15 the name of the petitioner federal society may not prohibit the members societies of respondent No.5 for entitlement of the work allotment, such allotment of work would certainly result in depriving some of the member societies of respondent No.5 in refusing the allotment of work engaged in building and construction. The circular issued dated 06.12.2008 cannot be read to lead either depriving some of the societies from allotment of work or an unequal distribution of the work amongst the societies. The communication dated 09.11.2012 and the circular issued by the District Deputy Registrar, Chandrapur, dated 07.02.2013 result in either depriving the labour societies from allotment of the construction work or an unequal distribution of the work amongst the societies. Such effect is neither permissible under law nor sustainable by any reasons. In view of these facts, the challenge to the order impugned in the petition fails.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
JUDGE *rrg.
Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for stay ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:04:30 ::: 15 wp6948.15 of the order of this Court for the period of two weeks on the ground that this Court by order, dated 23rd December, 2015 directed the District Works Committee, Chandrapur and District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chandrapur to consider the claim of the petitioner, respondent No.5 and other similarly situated Societies for allotment of work without prejudice to their rights.
Shri Bhandarkar, the learned Counsel for respondent No.5 opposes the prayer for grant of stay submitting that the order dated 23rd December, 2015 was not prohibiting the authorities from allotting the work but it was only a workable arrangement so as to consider the claim of the Societies during the pendency of the petition, without prejudice to their rights.
Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the federation of the members Societies and there are thousands of members of these Societies affiliated to the petitioner federation who apprehend that they would be deprived from allotment of the work.
At the request of Shri Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the judgment and order of this Court is stayed only for two weeks from today. Needless to state that after expiry of the period of two ::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:04:30 ::: 16 wp6948.15 weeks, the stay granted by this Court shall stand vacated without further reference to this Court.
JUDGE.
*rrg.
::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:04:30 :::