Bombay High Court
Wagamay Mahila Machchimar Sahakari ... vs The Commissioner Of Fisheries, ... on 2 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 BOM 765, 2019 (5) ABR 551 (2020) 1 MAH LJ 864, (2020) 1 MAH LJ 864
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
WPs 1887/18 & 3274/19 1 Common Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1887/2018
Waghamay Mahila Machchimar Sahakari
Sanstha Maryadit, Botha (Sa),
Regd. No.1429, Tq. Mahagaon, District Yavatmal,
through its President Shobha w/o Dattarao
Nemade, Aged about 44 years,
R/o Dongargaon, Tq. Mahagaon,
District - Yavatmal. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. The Commissioner of Fisheries,
Taraporevala Aquarium, Netaji
Subhash Road, Charni Road, Mumbai-02.
2. The Regional Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries,
Amravati Division, Amravati.
3. The Assistant Commissioner (Fisheries),
Yavatmal, District - Yavatmal.
4. The Assistant Registrar of
Cooperative Societies (ADF/Padum),
Yavatmal, Distt. Yavatmal.
5. The Executive Engineer,
Irrigation Department and Member of
District Level Water Tank Lease Committee,
Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal.
6. The Assistant Fisheries Development
Officer and Member Secretary of District
Level Water Tank Lease Committee,
Yavatmal.
7. Hanuman Mahila Matsyavyavasay Sahakari
Sanstha Maryadit at Devkarwadi,
Tq. Mahagaon, District - Yavatmal,
through its President Laxmibai Hiraman
Sonone, R/o Devkarwadi, Post-
Dongargaon, Tq. Mahagaon,
District - Yavatmal.
8. VIDC through the Executive Engineer,
Yavatmal, Distt. Yavatmal. RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 02:36:06 :::
WPs 1887/18 & 3274/19 2 Common Judgment
Shri R.L. Khapre with S.U. Nemade, counsel for petitioner.
Shri V.A. Thakare, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 4.
Shri M.V. Samarth, counsel for respondent no.7.
Shri V.G. Palshikar, counsel for respondent no.8.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3274/2019
Waghamay Mahila Machchimar Sahakari
Sanstha Maryadit, Botha (Sa),
Regd. No.1429, Tq. Mahagaon, District Yavatmal,
through its President Shobha
w/o Dattarao Nemade. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. The Commissioner of Fisheries and
Additional Registrar of Cooperative
Societies (Fisheries) Maharashtra State,
Taraporevala Aquarium, Netaji
Subhash Road, Charni Road, Mumbai-02.
2. The Assistant Commissioner (Fisheries),
Yavatmal, District - Yavatmal.
3. The Assistant Registrar of
Cooperative Societies (ADF/Padum),
Yavatmal, Distt. Yavatmal.
4. Hanuman Mahila Matsyavyavasay Sahakari
Sanstha Maryadit at Devkarwadi,
Tq. Mahagaon, District - Yavatmal,
through its President Laxmibai Hiraman
Sonone, R/o Devkarwadi, Post-
Dongargaon, Tq. Mahagaon,
District - Yavatmal.
5. VIDC through the Executive Engineer,
Yavatmal, Distt. Yavatmal. RESPONDENTS
Shri R.L. Khapre with S.U. Nemade, counsel for petitioner.
Shri V.A. Thakare, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 3.
Shri M.V. Samarth, counsel for respondent no.4.
Shri V.G. Palshikar, counsel for respondent no.5.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : 2ND AUGUST, 2019.
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 02:36:06 :::
WPs 1887/18 & 3274/19 3 Common Judgment
ORAL JUDGMENT
RULE. Heard finally with consent of counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge raised in Writ Petition No.3274 of 2019 is to the order dated 25.03.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Fisheries directing de-registration of the petitioner-Society under Section 21A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, 'the said Act'). In Writ Petition No.1887 of 2018, the order dated 03.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Fisheries setting aside the allotment of Jamnala Tank that was made in favour of the petitioner-Society is under challenge.
3. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that the petitioner-Society has been duly registered under the provisions of the said Act on 21.06.2007. When the said Society was registered, the villages of Botha and Dongargaon were shown as the areas of operation of the said Society with its registered Office at Botha. The respondent no.4- Society is also duly registered under the provisions of the said Act prior to the petitioner-Society on 05.05.2007. The villages of Morath, Veni, Dharmoha, Devkarwadi, Jamnala and Wakodi are shown as the areas of operation of the respondent no.4-Society. According to the respondent no.4-Society, Jamnala tank was falling within its area of operation. ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 02:36:06 :::
WPs 1887/18 & 3274/19 4 Common Judgment However, the petitioner-Society by misrepresentation and by tampering with the relevant documents sought to include that area within its area of operation. The respondent no.4-Society therefore sought de-registration of the petitioner-Society on the ground that it had been registered by misrepresenting various vital aspects. The Office of the Commissioner of Fisheries thus issued a notice the petitioner-Society on 21.12.2017 calling upon the petitioner-Society to show cause why it should not be de- registered. The petitioner-Society filed its submissions and opposed the application as moved. Besides raising the objection as to the jurisdiction on the part of the Commissioner to initiate proceedings for de-registration it was pleaded that as the petitioner-Society was registered in the year 2007, the prayer for de-registration made after a period of more than three years was barred by limitation. After referring to various documents it was sought to be urged that the petitioner-Society was duly registered after following the requisite procedure without misrepresenting any facts. The Commissioner of Fisheries after giving due opportunity to the parties passed an order on 25.03.2019 and came to the conclusion that the application preferred by the respondent no.4 seeking de-registration under Section 21-A of the said Act was tenable and warranted consideration. It then recorded a finding that various villages which were not within the area of operation of the petitioner-Society including Jamnala had been so included by making alterations in the requisite ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 02:36:06 ::: WPs 1887/18 & 3274/19 5 Common Judgment documents. Similarly, it was found that the documents pertaining to the proof of residence of the members were fabricated and the Chief Promoter was a different person than the one shown. The Commissioner of Fisheries was of the view that registration had been granted to the petitioner-Society through misrepresentation. On that count, order under Section 21A of the said Act came to be passed on 25.03.2019 de- registering the petitioner-Society. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-Society has challenged the said order in Writ Petition No.3274 of 2019.
4. Shri R.L. Khapre, learned counsel for the petitioner-society in support of the challenge to the impugned order submitted that the said order had been passed without following the principles of natural justice. The documents referred to in the show cause notice dated 21.12.2017 had not been supplied to the petitioner-Society and therefore the Society could not put forth its defence in proper manner. He submitted that since the action of de-registration of a Society is a drastic action and the proceedings in that regard are in the nature of quasi criminal proceedings, the degree of proof required to record a finding that there was misrepresentation was on a higher side. Without satisfying those requirements and merely on the basis of documents produced by the respondent no.4-Society, the Commissioner had proceeded to pass an order of de-registration. He then submitted that as the application ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 02:36:06 ::: WPs 1887/18 & 3274/19 6 Common Judgment seeking de-registration was moved after a period of more than ten years since the registration of the Society, the same was not liable to be entertained. The request for de-registration on the ground that the Society had been registered through misrepresentation ought to have been moved immediately after registration of the society. A belated challenge was therefore not liable to be entertained by the Commissioner. The learned counsel then referred to various documents on record to substantiate his contentions that village Botha was part of Dongargaon and by merely stating names of villages within that area did not amount to misrepresentation of any vital aspects. It was thus submitted that as the requirements of Section 21A of the said Act were not satisfied, the impugned order was liable to be set aside. He also referred to the provisions of Rule 21-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules, 1971 to justify the entitlement of the petitioner-Society. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied on the decisions in Rajiv Gandhi Macchimar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Versus Deputy Registrar & Others [2015(5) All MR 832], Sion Shivneri Co-operative Housing Society Limited Versus State of Maharashtra & Others [2005(1) Mh.L.J. 557], M/s Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. Versus The Workmen & Others [AIR 1972 Supreme Court 330], Indian National Congress (I) Versus Institute of Social Welfare & Others [AIR 2002 SC 2158], Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha Versus The Sitamarhi ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 02:36:06 ::: WPs 1887/18 & 3274/19 7 Common Judgment Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Another [AIR 1967 SC 1494], K. Shamrao & Others Versus Assistant Charity Commissioner [AIR 2003 SC 1828], Mukund Waman Thatte Versus Sudhir Parshuram Chitale & Others [2012(3) Mh.L.J. 322], Dhanraj Natthuji Kale & Others Versus Govindrao Laxmanrao Choudhary & Others [2012(4) Mh.L.J. 956] and Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & Others Versus Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Others [AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2471]. He therefore submitted that the impugned order was liable to be set aside.
5. Shri M.V. Samarth, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 on the other hand supported the impugned order and submitted that the respondent no.1 was justified in recording a finding that the petitioner- Society was granted registration on account of misrepresentation of material facts. Referring to the provisions of Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the said Act, it was submitted that the conditions for registration as prescribed were required to be duly complied. The respondent no.1 on considering the material on record had clearly concluded that the bye- laws of the petitioner-Society had not been amended to include Dongargaon within its area of operation. He referred to various documents placed on record before the respondent no.1 to substantiate his contention that there was overwriting in respect of the names of villages within the area of operation of the petitioner-Society. Similarly, ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 02:36:06 ::: WPs 1887/18 & 3274/19 8 Common Judgment on perusal of the certificates indicating the residence of the members as compared with the voters list, it was clear that said members were not residents of village Botha. Even the Sarpanch of the said village had certified that the members shown were not residents of village Botha. He further submitted that the enquiry in question that was required to be made under Section 21A of the said Act was of a summary nature and after considering all relevant documents it was clear that the same indicated misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner-Society while seeking registration. According to him all relevant material filed alongwith the application moved by the respondent no.4 had been supplied to the petitioner-Society during the course of the proceedings before the respondent no.1 and it was only thereafter that the impugned order came to be passed. The question of initiating proceedings belatedly did not arise and the application seeking de-registration came to be moved immediately on noticing the fact that members of the petitioner- Society were claiming rights of fishing in Jamnala tank though it was not within its area of operation. Such proceedings could be initiated on noticing the misrepresentation and it was not a requirement that the proceedings were required to be initiated within a period of three years from the date of registration. Thus, in absence of the bye-laws of the petitioner-society being duly amended to include the said village within its area of operation, the impugned order was liable to be sustained. ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 02:36:06 :::
WPs 1887/18 & 3274/19 9 Common Judgment
6. Shri V.A. Thakare, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3 and Shri V.G. Palshikar, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 supported the impugned order. The learned Assistant Government Pleader relied upon the communication dated 11.06.2007 that was issued by the District Fisheries Development Officer in which it was stated that the petitioner-Society would not claim any right over Jamnala tank. Similar letter dated 09.04.2007 pertaining to the respondent no.4-Society was also issued. He further referred to the certificate given by the Sub-Divisional Engineer that Jamnala tank was included within the area of operation of the respondent no.4-Society. He therefore submitted that after considering all relevant material the impugned order has been passed.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and with their assistance I have perused the documents placed on record. Under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, a Society can be registered subject to fulfilling the requirements prescribed in that regard. Section 6 provides the conditions for registration which includes it consisting of at least ten persons and each person being a member of a different family and who reside in the area of operation of the Society. Under Section 8 of the said Act, an application is required to be made to the Registrar in the prescribed form and in the manner prescribed. Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 prescribes the ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 02:36:06 ::: WPs 1887/18 & 3274/19 10 Common Judgment information to be furnished while making an application for registration as per Form A. Under Section 9, on the Registrar being satisfied that a proposed society has complied with the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder, he shall within a period of two months from the date of receiving the application register the Society and its bye-laws. If the registration is required to be refused the reasons in that regard have to be communicated. Section 21 of the said Act prescribes for cancellation of registration in certain contingencies and under Section 21A of the said Act on the Registrar being satisfied that any Society has been registered on the misrepresentation made by the applicant or in other stipulated contingencies, a Society can be de-registered.
8. These provisions thus indicate that initially under Section 9 of the said Act, the Registrar has to be satisfied that a proposed society has complied with the provisions of the said Act and the Rules and hence is permitted to be registered. While registering a society, it is for the Registrar to consider the application for registration and whether the requirements as prescribed are satisfied. One such condition is the requirement under Section 6 of the said Act of the proposed members residing within the area of operation. The Registrar is also required to consider whether the proposed society complies with the provisions of the said Act and the Rules and that its proposed bye-laws are not contrary to ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 02:36:06 ::: WPs 1887/18 & 3274/19 11 Common Judgment the said Act and the Rules. The information to be furnished as per Form A contains a declaration that the same is correct to the best of knowledge. As noted above, Section 6 of the said Act prescribes various conditions for the purpose of registration of the society. These include the society consisting of ten persons, each person being a member of a different family and the requirement of their residence in the area of operation. Under Section 21A of the said Act, if the Registrar is satisfied that any society is registered on the misrepresentation made by the applicants, an order of de-registration can be passed.
9. While considering whether a society has to be de-registered under Section 21A of the said Act, it is for the Registrar to consider whether the documents relied upon while seeking registration or the information supplied in that regard is based on existing facts. If it is found by the Registrar that there has been some misrepresentation or some incorrect information has been furnished relying on which he had initially granted the registration, then the Registrar can always proceed to consider de-registering the Society in question. In other words, what is material is the satisfaction of the Registrar that the relevant material required for registering the Society was indicated to exist which had thus led the Office of the Registrar to grant registration which is thereafter found either non-existing or incorrect warranting de-registration of the ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 02:36:06 ::: WPs 1887/18 & 3274/19 12 Common Judgment Society. The requirement of the aforesaid provisions is the initial satisfaction of the Registrar that the proposed society has complied with the provisions of the said Act and the Rules warranting grant of registration and then similar satisfaction that the registration has been granted in view of misrepresentation made by the applicants. The expression used in Section 9(1) of the said Act when the registration is to be granted to a proposed society and in Section 21A of the said Act when a society is to be de-registered on misrepresentation made by the applicants is "if the Registrar is satisfied............". Thus, for the purposes of grant of registration as well as for de-registration what is material is the satisfaction of the Registrar. The satisfaction for the purposes of registration of a Society if based on principles of preponderance of probabilities, similar degree of satisfaction would be requiredto be arrived at based on the same principles. The degree of proof therefore would be based on preponderance of probabilities and not of such nature that would require proof beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the material produced while seeking registration of a Society that has prompted the Registrar to grant registration if shown to be non-existent or incorrect can again satisfy the Registrar in calling back the registration of the Society by passing an order of de-registration under Section 21A of the said Act.
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 02:36:06 :::
WPs 1887/18 & 3274/19 13 Common Judgment
10. The term 'misrepresentation' means and includes a positive assertion of a fact in a manner not warranted by the information. It is an assertion that does not accord with the facts. Thus, if the material on the basis of which the Registrar was satisfied for the purposes of grant of registration if is found to be misrepresented, same could also result in the Registrar being satisfied in directing de-registration. Such misrepresentation need not be fradulent. It could also be an incorrect presentation of those aspects necessary for grant of registration.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner since an order of de-registration of a society is of a drastic nature, the degree of proof to indicate misrepresentation should be on a higher side. The plain reading of the aforesaid provisions however does not support this submission as what is required is the satisfaction of the Registrar that on account of such misrepresentation he had granted registration.
11. The submission that proceedings for de-registration of a Society be considered as quasi-criminal proceedings in nature also does not warrant acceptance. Though an order of de-registration of a society would result in civil consequences and thus said action is required to be taken after complying with the principles of natural justice, at the same time there are no penal/criminal consequences flowing on account of passing of an order of de-registration. The provisions of Section 146 of ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 02:36:06 ::: WPs 1887/18 & 3274/19 14 Common Judgment the said Act prescribe various offences under the said Act. However, the provisions of Section 21A of the said Act are not included in Section 146 of the said Act. Thus, except consequences provided under Section 21A of the said Act and absence of any advantages admissible under the said Act by virtue of its registration, the Society or its members are not visited by any penal consequences. Hence, proceedings for de-registration of a Society cannot be treated as quasi-criminal proceedings warranting invocation of the requirement of strict proof/proof beyond reasonable doubt.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the degree of proof required to be satisfied should be of a higher standard than that required in cases governed by the rule of preponderance of probabilities which submission is sought to be supported by relying upon the decisions in Dhanraj Natthuji Kale & Others and Mukund Waman Thatte (supra). As noted above, what is required to be taken into consideration is the aspect of satisfaction of the Registrar while directing de-registration of the society. The decisions relied upon are in proceedings under Section 41D of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 wherein trustees were sought to be removed on the ground of malfeasance and misfeasance. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the nature of proof that would be required in such cases. Since there is an imputation that would reflect on the integrity of the trustees sought to be removed, such degree of proof ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 02:36:06 ::: WPs 1887/18 & 3274/19 15 Common Judgment has been insisted upon. There is no such requirement insofar as Section 21A of the said Act is concerned. The order of de-registration of a Society results in civil consequences. As noted above, there are no penal consequences suffered by an order of de-registration of a society. Moreover, it is only the satisfaction of the Registrar which is material both for the purposes of grant of registration and for de-registration. Hence, that contention cannot be accepted.
12. When the material on record is examined in the light of aforesaid observations, it can be seen that for reaching its satisfaction for de-registering the petitioner-Society, the Registrar has found that the representation as made by the Society while seeking registration that all persons named in the application were residents of village Botha was not correct.
The Sarpanch of village Botha as well as its Police Patil had certified that the 26 members shown by the petitioner-Society in the application for registration were not the residents of village Botha which was one of the vital requirements for valid registration of the Society. The voters list of village Botha indicated absence of their names therein. There is also a resolution passed by Gram Panchayat, Botha on 20.02.2013 that the 26 persons shown as members of the petitioner- Society were not residents of village Botha.
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 02:36:06 :::
WPs 1887/18 & 3274/19 16 Common Judgment The affidavit of the Sarpanch was taken into consideration to conclude that the certificates indicating residence of the members of the society bore false seals and signatures. The person who had signed as Chief Promoter was also different. There was a reference to two different names as Chief Promoter in the documents of registration which was not in accordance with law. The communication dated 21.06.2007 issued by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies indicates the name of one Smt.Lalita Khushalrao Sathe as the person who had moved the proposal for initial registration of the petitioner-Society. Her name does not appear thereafter in the subsequent communications.
13. It has then been found that the villages of Morath, Dharmala, Veni, Jamnala, Pangarwadi, Chirangwadi and Wakodi were included in the area of operation of the Society without any order of the competent Authority. The Authorities have found after inspecting the original copy of the bye-laws of the petitioner-Society that the area of operation shown while granting registration was only Botha(S) and Dongargaon. The villages of Morath, Wakodi, Pangarwadi, Chirangwadi and Jamnala were shown to have been inserted without the consent of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. It is also material to note that in Appeal No.32 of 2012 the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Fisheries) challenging the grant of registration to the respondent no.4-Society has ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 02:36:06 ::: WPs 1887/18 & 3274/19 17 Common Judgment also noted the aforesaid aspect in its order dated 21.05.2013. It was specifically observed that the names of villages of Chirangwadi and Jamnala had been inserted in the area of operation without consent of the competent Authority. It has also held that Devkarwadi was within the area of operation of the respondent no.4-Society. This order was challenged by the petitioner-Society before the Commissioner of Fisheries. In the order dated 10.03.2014 it was held that as per the conditions imposed by the District Fisheries Development Officer on 11.06.2007 the petitioner-Society was disentitled from making any claim for fishing rights in Jamnala tank. The President of the petitioner-Society had on 17.09.2012 given an undertaking that the adjudication in Appeal No.32 of 2012 would be acceptable to the Society. This adjudication has attained finality. As the petitioner-Society was not in a position to furnish proper clarification in that regard, the Registrar proceeded to accept that allegation.
14. As regards the submission that the respondent no.4 should have furnished due proof of the documents on which it sought to rely to indicate that the signatures of the President of the petitioner-Society were manipulated or that the members were shown to be residents of village Botha, in the present case the material on record is in the form of affidavits of Sarpanch and Police Patil coupled with the voters list to ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 02:36:06 ::: WPs 1887/18 & 3274/19 18 Common Judgment indicate that said members were not residents of village Botha. Similarly, the earlier adjudication with regard to the challenge raised to the registration of the respondent no.4-Society was also referred to while concluding that there was misrepresentation while granting registration to the petitioner-Society. It was always opn for the petitioner-Society to bring on record such material which according to it was sufficient to meet the allegations made against it so as to maintain the order of registration granted earlier. The Registrar however in the impugned order has specifically observed that despite opportunity, the petitioner-Society has not been able to clarify various relevant aspects and especially the aspect of inclusion of names of various villages that were initially not within its area of operation. Hence, that contention as urged by relying upon the decisions in M/s Bareilly Electricity Supply Company Ltd., Indian National Congress and Thakur Jugalkishore Sinha (supra) cannot be accepted. Similarly, the reliance placed on the decision in Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil & Others (supra) to urge that the prayer for de-registration was made after almost nine years from the grant of registration and hence not made within reasonable period also does not deserve favourable consideration. Once it is found that there was misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner-Society in seeking registration, the Registrar was competent to entertain the prayer for de-registering that society under Section 21A of the said Act.
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 02:36:06 :::
WPs 1887/18 & 3274/19 19 Common Judgment
15. It is on the basis of relevant material before it that the respondent no.1 has arrived at a satisfaction that the registration of the petitioner-Society was granted under misrepresentation and it was thus liable to be withdrawn. It is found that after giving due opportunity to the petitioners and after considering all relevant material, the Registrar has come to the conclusion that as the petitioner-Society was granted registration as a result of misrepresentation made by the members of the petitioner-Society, it was liable to be de-registered. The material relied upon by the Registrar has been specifically referred to in the application moved by the respondent no.4-Society and the documents in that regard were annexed to that application and placed on record. The show cause notice issued by the Registrar on 21.12.2017 also contains necessary details. The affidavit on record filed by the respondent no.1 dated 02.07.2019 refers to grant of full opportunity to the petitioner- Society before the impugned order was passed. The view taken by the Registrar is in accordance with the provisions of the said Act after being satisfied that the material warranting grant of registration was found to be misrepresented. I therefore do not find any jurisdictional error in passing of the impugned order. As a result, the impugned order is upheld.
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 02:36:06 :::
WPs 1887/18 & 3274/19 20 Common Judgment
16. As it has been found that the impugned order directing de-registration as passed on 25.03.2019 is in accordance with law and is liable to be maintained, the challenge as raised to the order dated 03.03.2018 in Writ Petition No.1887 of 2018 cancelling the allotment of the aforesaid tank in favour of the petitioner-Society would automatically fall to ground. By virtue of its de-registration, the allotment of the fishing tank in its favour would not be permissible. Moreover the order dated 03.03.2018 has also been passed by holding that the petitioner-Society had sought to include names of various villages including village Jamnala by making interpolations and without the consent of the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies. Since the order of de-registration passed under Section 21A of the said Act has been upheld, the challenge to the order dated 03.03.2018 therefore would not survive. The foundation in the form of registration of the Society having been removed, the superstructure in the form of allotment of the Jamnala tank for fishing would automatically fall to the ground.
17. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. The said writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs. ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 02:36:06 :::
WPs 1887/18 & 3274/19 21 Common Judgment
18. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner- Society, the interim order that has been operating in the writ petitions shall continue to operate for a period of six weeks and shall cease to operate automatically thereafter.
(A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.) APTE ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2020 02:36:06 :::