Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.32 seconds)Section 73G in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Suresh Dnyandeo Khumkar And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 26 February, 1987
In Shriram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana's case (supra), referring to the decision Suresh Dyandeo Khumar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, , Union of India v. Sakalchand, , the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that mere submission of copies of show cause notice without disclosing the copies of the documents to the federal society, on the basis of which dissolution is sought for of the sugar factory, the dissolution order of the co-operative sugar factory could not he said to have been passed after effective consultation and, therefore, action under section 78 of the said Act was bad in law. It was also held that the consultation was a mandatory requirement and it has to be actual and read before taking any action under the said section.
Shalikram Shivram Khobragade And ... vs Divisional Joint Registrar, ... on 7 October, 1997
11. The learned Single Judge in Shalikram Shivram Khobragade's case (supra) has held that consultation under section 78 of the said Act is not an empty formality and a ritual. The consultation would mean that the authority who is sought to be consulted is provided with the material based on which the order is to be passed in terms of the provisions contained in section 78 of the said Act. Sufficient opportunity must be given to the authority to tender the advice. In the present case, admittedly, only the show cause notice was issued on 13th February, 1997. However, though it was contended that the show cause notice was sent to the federal society, nothing was available on record to show that the federal society had in fact, received the said notice. It was further observed by the learned Single Judge that even assuming that the said notice was received, it was apparent that the petitioners therein had filed their reply on 28-2-1997. Nothing was disclosed from record that the copy of the reply filed by the petitioners to the show cause notice was also made available to the federal society and yet, the order impugned therein, was passed on 10th March, 1997. The learned Single Judge, therefore, has held that even if it was held that the copy of the show cause notice was sent to the federal society, it could not be said that there was real, meaningful and effective consultation inasmuch as the reply given by the Directors was not made available to the Federal Society.
The Maharashtra Prohibition Act
Section 45 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Agricultural Produce Market ... vs Divisional Jonit Registrar, ... on 10 January, 1984
9. The Division Bench in Agricultural Produce Market Committee's case (supra) has held that the consultation is not an empty formality or a ritual. It has to be real, full and effective. Unless there has been full consideration of all the matters relevant to the question, it cannot be said that the process of cannot has taken place. It has been further observed that there is a corresponding duty also on the body whose consultation is mandatory to give its opinion. Mere sending of a copy of the show cause notice without anything more cannot amount to consultation within the letter and spirit of the proviso to section 45(1) of the Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act. It was also held that no opinion could be given only on the basis of a show cause notice issued by the District Deputy Registrar and the way, reply was sought showed that the authorities treated the requirement of consultation in a most casual fashion as if it was a mere ritual. The facts of the said case also disclose that apart from mere sending of the copy of the show cause notice, nothing more was done to have effective consultation with the Federation of the Market Committees as was otherwise required to be done under section 45(1) of the concerned Act. It was specifically observed by the Division Bench that neither the defence put up by the market committee nor the relevant material on the basis of which proposed supersession was to take place was placed before the Federation and therefore, no opinion could be given only on the basis of a show cause notice issued by the respondent and hence, there was no effective consultation.
1