Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

                                       15/60             WP_4887_of_2018_and_Anr-1(1).doc




iii)       So far as the 4th proviso is concerned, it employs the phrase, "which

have not been completed within the aforesaid period on the date of commencement of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act 2017". The 4th proviso contemplates proceedings which have not been competed and have remained inconclusive because of the expiry of the period provided in 1st and 2nd provisos i.e. 2½ years. Therefore, it is only those proceedings that have commenced but the inquiry has remained inconclusive even after the expiry of period 2½ years when judged on the date of 26-04-2017, that would be covered by the 4 th proviso. Therefore, the 4th proviso requires that such proceedings be identified by examining the situation as on the date of coming into force on the Amendment Act (i.e. 26.04.2017) and it can only apply to such enquiries which have remained inconclusive within the period of 2½ years that has expired prior to coming into force of the Amendment Act.

v) The intention of the Legislature is express and clear from the Statement of Objects and Reasons, wherein extension of time is sought to be provided to bring the enquiries that have remained incomplete, to its logical conclusion.

vi) Thus, the intention of the Legislature is clear that all inconclusive proceedings, either which are continuing or those that have remained inconclusive because of the expiry of time, are to be brought to its logical conclusion.

vii) The construction canvassed by the Respondent-State would only mean that the provisions of Section 88 as well as the 4 th proviso thereto would be read harmoniously and every word of 3 rd and 4th proviso will be given effect to.

ix) It is a settled law that a statute cannot be interpreted based on what language the Legislature should have used or could have used.

x) The word "extend" is used both in 3 rd and 4th provisos. The meaning of the word "extend" must draw its colour from the context in which it is used and the setting and meaning of the other words in the said proviso. The word "extend" in the 4th proviso is used in the context of extending the time for completion of proceedings that have remained inconclusive as a result of the expiry of 2 ½ years time period. It is not necessary for the Legislature to always use the word "revive" for a proceeding in which the period is concluded, because the proceedings do not lapse as on the completion of 2½ years, but only remains inconclusive, and therefore, the word "extend", has been used in the 4th proviso in respect of the incomplete proceedings, the time period for which has expired before the date of commencement of the Amendment Act.

52/60 WP_4887_of_2018_and_Anr-1(1).doc

35. We have already held that the 4th proviso to section 88 has been expressly made retrospective in operation. In paragraphs 12 to 14 above, we have discussed the relevant provisions as regards the nature of the inquiry contemplated under the MCS Act and the MCS Rules. It is the prerogative of the Legislature to provide the time-frame for completion of the inquiry contemplated in section 88 of the MCS Act. Right from the year 1960 when the MCS Act was enacted there was no outer limit prescribed for completion of the inquiry under section 88. It is only between the years 2013-2017 that the inquiry under section 88 was made time bound. It appears that prior to 2013, since there was no time-frame provided, the inquiry proceedings which is in essence proceedings for recovery, dragged on for years together and the Legislature therefore in it's wisdom thought it fit to add 1st and 2nd provisos to section 88 by the Amendment Act of 2013, by which an outer limit of two years was provided, which could be extended by maximum period of 6 months. There was, however, no provision made for further extension in cases where the inquiry proceedings were stayed by the Courts or where the inquiry was at a very large scale requiring scrutiny of voluminous records or vast number of witnesses were required to be examined/cross-examined, etc. In such cases, it was impossible to complete the inquiry within stipulated period of 2½ years. It is in these circumstances that the 3rd and 4th provisos were added by the Amendment 53/60 WP_4887_of_2018_and_Anr-1(1).doc Act, whereby in cases where it was not possible to complete the inquiry proceedings within the stipulated period of 2½ years, provision was made for extending the time-frame for completion of ongoing inquiry proceedings from time to time and also to complete the inquiry proceedings which had remained inconclusive on account of expiry of the stipulated period of 2½ years as on the date of the Amendment Act i.e. 26-04-2017. The Amendment Act of 2017, introducing 3 rd and 4th provisos was a measure to ensure that the defect in the MCS Act was cured so that ongoing inquiries as well as inconclusive inquiries would be taken to their logical conclusion by extending the time-frame of 2½ years subject to conditions stipulated therein. The Amendment Act of 2017 was thus a remedial measure to remove the flaw in the MCS Act which existed between the years 2013 to 2017, so as to fix responsibility upon the delinquent office bearers and ensure that they are made accountable and recoveries are made and they are not let off scot-free by taking advantage of the lacuna in the MCS Act. The inquiry under section 88 is an inquiry in public interest in order to ascertain whether the affairs of the Co-operative Society (the Respondent Bank, in the instant case) are conducted lawfully and whether there are any financial improprieties committed by the delinquent office bearers in the matter of conduct of the affairs of the Respondent Bank. Where there are allegations of embezzlement and misappropriation of public fund a common 54/60 WP_4887_of_2018_and_Anr-1(1).doc man who has been cheated has no control over the inquiry and cannot ensure that the inquiry is completed within the time limit prescribed. The Amendment Act of 2017 has neither created any new disabilities nor created any new liabilities upon the Petitioners. It is required to be noted that the 1st and 2nd provisos do not stipulate any consequence, in that, the said provisos do not state that the failure to complete the inquiry within the stipulated period of 2½ years would result in lapse of the inquiry. The Amendment Act is enacted to bring into existence the state of affairs as it existed prior to 2013 with a rider that the inquiry proceedings can be extended beyond the prescribed period of 2½ years only by the State Government on the report of the Registrar or suo moto, for reasons to be recorded in writing.