1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1453 OF 2010
Dharangaon Taluka Dekhrekh Sahakari
Sangh Limited, Dharangaon,
Tq. Dharangaon, District Jalgaon
Through its Chairman
Gokulsingh S/o Pralhad Patil,
Age 60 years, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o Paldi(Bk) Tq. Dharangaon,
District Jalgaon
ig .. PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Secretary,
Co-operation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2) The Commissioner for Co-operation
and the Registrar,
Co-operative Societies,
Maharashtra State, Pune.
3) The District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Jalgaon
District Jalgaon.
4) The Assistant Registrar,
Co-operative Societies
Dharangaon, Tq. Dharangaon
District Jalgaon RESPONDENTS.
...
Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to
4.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:53:28 :::
2
CORAM : P.V. HARDAS
AND
S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 13th April, 2010.
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 26th April, 2010.
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.)
1. Heard learned counsel Shri V.D. Hon
for the petitioner, Shri S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for
respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
2. The petitioner in present Writ
Petition, impugns communication dated 07/12/2009
issued by the Commissioner for Co-operation and
the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, M.S., Pune
addressed to District Deputy Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, regarding implementing
Vaidyanathan Committee Report.
3. The Petitioner is a Co-operative
Society registered under the provisions of
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and
is a supervising unit concerned with the cadre of
the Secretaries constituted U/Sec. 69-A of the
Societies Act. According to the petitioner its
area of operation extends to Jalgaon District.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:53:28 :::
3
The Petitioner society has been constituted with
the object of creating and maintaining the cadre
of Secretaries, Managers and other paid employees
of Primary agricultural credit and/or multi
purpose co-operative societies and also such
other class of societies as may be permitted by
the State Government from time to time. According
to the petitioner it is functioning in accordance
with the provisions of Societies Act, Rules and
bye laws, which are duly approved.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
Shri V.D. Hon, strenuously contended that the
Commissioner vide impugned communication has
withdrawn the functions of the petitioner Taluka
Sangh, and thereby there is withdrawal of powers
and function of the Taluka Sangh given bestowed
by Section 69-A of the Societies Act under the
legislative functions. According to the learned
counsel as per Section Section 69-A (2A), the
immediate initial supervisory control on the
person appointed to the cadre and deputed or
posted to work as Secretary under each of the
societies referred in Sub Section (1) shall be
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:53:28 :::
4
with the Taluka supervising societies consisting
of the societies in each respective Taluka to
which persons are deputed as members thereof. The
Taluka supervision society shall exercise such
powers and discharge such functions or perform
such duties as may be conferred or imposed by it,
by the bye laws of such society. According to the
learned counsel, the said Sub Section (2A) of
Section 69
ig was introduced by way of an
amendment,whereby powers were given to the Taluka
Supervision Sangh society like petitioner.
According to the petitioner’s learned counsel,
impugned communication is in gross violation of
Sub Section (1) and (2A) of Section 69-A of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and
as such prayed for quashing the said
communication.
5. Shri S.K. Kadam, learned A.G.P. for
respondents submitted that the said communication
is perfectly legal and valid and is in consonance
with the Vaidyanathan Committee Report, so also
is perfectly in accordance with the Sub Section 7
of Section 69-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:53:28 :::
5
Societies Act, 1960. Section 69-A (7) reads
thus :-
” Notwithstanding anything contained in
Sub Section (1) to (6), on and from the 1st
day of January, 2009, nothing in sub
sections (1) to (6) shall apply in a co-
operative credit structure entity.”
Co-operative Credit structure entity is
defined Under
ig Section 2(10-aii-1) which reads
thus :-
" Section 2(10-aii-1) "Cooperative credit
structure entity" means the primary
agricultural credit co-oprative society, the
District Central Co-operative Bank or theState Co-operative Bank.”
Sub Section 7 of section 69-A starts with
the non-obstante clause, which lays down that
notwithstanding anything contained in Sub
Sections (1) to (6) nothing in Sub Section (1) to
(6), would apply to Cooperative, credit structure
entity, as such in view of Sub Section 7 of
Section 69-A the said impugned communication
dated 7/12/2009 is not contrary to Section 69-A
but is in consonance with the same. While reading
Section 69-A(1) and Sub section (2-A), Sub
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:53:28 :::
6
Section 7 of Section 69-A cannot be ignored. It
starts with a non-obstante clause, as such effect
will have to be given to Sub Section 7 of Section
69-A. The said provision categorically lays down
that the right envisaged in Sub Section (1) to
(6) of Section 69-A would not be available to Co-
operative credit structure entity. In such
circumstances, as the impugned communication does
not suffer from any illegality, nor is against
any provision of law but is in accordance with
the letters and spirit of Sub Section 7 of
Section 69-A, the present Writ Petition
challenging the said communication is not
sustainable, as such the Writ Petition deserves
to be dismissed.
6. In the result, Writ Petition is
dismissed, there shall be no order as to costs.
[S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ]
SDM* WP;2897.10 (J)
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:53:28 :::