ORDER
A.V. Savant, J.
1. Heard all the learned Counsels; Shri Suryawanshi for petitioner. Shri Bhapkar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and Shri Patil for respondents Nos. 7 and 13.
2. The short point is about the legal competence of respondent No. 3 District Deputy Registrar to do two things, viz; (i) receiving the requisition of ‘no confidence motion’, against the petitioner, who has been elected as the Chairman of District Loan Committee of respondent No. 6 District Branch of respondent No. 5-a specified co-operative society, within the meaning of section 73-G of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, (for short, the “1960 Act” hereinafter) and (ii) convening the meeting on 5th February 2000 at 1.00 p.m. for considering the said no confidence motion.
3. The petitioner claims to be elected as the Chairman of the District Loan Committee of respondent No. 6 on 16-10-1998 for a period of five years. On 24-1-2000 a requisition was submitted by the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 and one more person (in all 8 out of 11 members of the District Loan Committee of respondents No. 6). Pursuant to that requisition, respondents No. 3 has convened the meeting of the District Loan Committee, vide impugned notice dated 24-1-2000, to be held at 1.00 p.m. on Saturday, the 5th February, 2000.
4. The petitioner has challenged the said notice before us on two grounds, namely; (i) the requisition dated 24-1-2000 was submitted to respondent No. 3 who has no authority to receive the said requisition and (ii) respondent No. 3 has also no authority to convene the meeting for consideration of the said requisition.
5. In this behalf, we may first refer to the provisions of section 112-A of the 1960 Act. Said section deals with the District Loan Committee, its terms of office of delegates, casual vacancies, powers of such committee etc. We are concerned with sub-section (7) of section 112-A of the 1960 Act, which reads as under :—
“(7) The provision of sections 73-ID, 73-A, 73-FF, 77-A, 78, Clauses (j) and (k) of section 146, (j) and (k) of section 147, sections 160-A and 160-B shall apply, mutatis mutandis to the District Loan Committee as they apply in relation to a committee of a society.”
6. Turning to section 73-ID of the 1960 Act which deals with the motion of no confidence against the officers of the society, by virtue of section 112-A(7), the provision of section 73-ID would be applicable to the motion of no confidence against the petitioner in his capacity as the Chairman of the District Loan Committee of respondent No. 6 district branch of respondent No. 5 specified society. This legal position is conceded before us by all the learned Counsels.
7. It is true that sub-section (2) of section 73-ID of the 1960 Act contemplates that the requisition of a special meeting should be signed by not less than 1/3 of the total number of members of the committee, who are entitled to elect, and shall be delivered to the Registrar. There are 11 members of the committee and the requisition has been submitted by as many as 8 members. Shri Suryawanshi contends that the requisition has been submitted to respondent No. 3 who is the District Deputy Registrar and not to respondent No. 2 who is the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who alone was legally competent to receive the requisition and, then, to convene the meeting.
8. Section 3 of the 1960 Act defines the ‘Registrar’ in the following words;
“3. Registrar and his subordinates
The State Government may appoint a person to be the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the State; and may appoint one or more persons to assist such Registrar with such designations, and in such local areas or throughout the State, as it may specify in that behalf, and may, by general or special order, confer on any such person or persons all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act. The person or persons so appointed to assist the Registrar and on whom any powers of the Registrar are conferred shall work under the general guidance, superintendence and control of the Registrar. They shall be subordinate to the Registrar and subordination of such persons among themselves shall be such as may be determined by the State Government.”
9. There is a general order issued on 7th August, 1993, in exercise of the powers of the State Government, under section 3 of the 1960 Act. Relevant portion of which, reads as under:
“Order
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
No. CSL. 1493/1162/CR-47/15-C. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (Mah. XXIV of 1961) and in suppression of Government Orders, Agriculture and Co-operation Department, No. CSL 1481/24982/ 15-C(87), dated the 1st July 1981 and No. CSL. 1487/34589/180/15-C, dated the 22nd June 1988, the Government of Maharashtra hereby–
(i) appoints officers specified in column (2) of the schedule hereto annexed to assist the Registrar in the areas specified in column (3) thereof; and
(ii) confers on them the powers of the Registrar specified against them in column (4) of the said schedule.
Sr. No.
Officers
Area
Powers
5.
District Deputy Registrars of Co-operative Societies
in Districts.
District
All powers of the Regis-trar under the Act and the said rules not
being powers under
(a) Explanation II to sub-section (3) of section 29, proviso to
sub-section (3) of section 44, proviso to sub-section (2) of sections
66, 81(1) and (6), 90(2), 134(2), 142, 148(3), 152, 153, 154 and 159 of
the Act, and (b) Rules 2(c), 22(2), 42, 43(2), proviso to sub-rule (1) of
Rule 62, 69(1) and Explanation 2 thereto, 69(7), 74, 5 85(9), sub- rules
(10) and (11) of Rule 93, 100(4) in Maharashtra State Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, 103(2), sub-rules
(2) & (3) of Rule 107 in so far as they relate to scale of deposits for
execution of decree.
10. Perusal of the above notification will show that the District Deputy Registrar respondent No. 3 has been specifically empowered to exercise all the powers of the Registrar, within the District, save and except the powers mentioned in column 4 of the schedule. Admittedly, power under section 73-ID(2) of the 1960 Act for receiving a requisition of ‘no confidence motion’ or the power under 73-I(3) to convene the meeting for considering the motion of no confidence is not one ,of the excluded powers. It would, therefore, follow that the District Deputy Registrar-respondents No. 3 who has been authorised to exercise the powers and functions of the Registrar, would be competent to receive the requisition for ‘no confidence’ within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 73-ID of the 1960 Act. The first contention of Shri Suryawanshi has therefore, no merit. It is accordingly rejected.
11. The second contention of Shri Suryawanshi is a corollary to the first contention namely; that respondent No. 3 has no power to convene the meeting, in view of the provisions of section 73-ID(3) of the 1960 Act. If the District Deputy Registrar-respondent No. 3 is authorised, in view of the above quoted notification, to exercise the powers of the Registrar, in our view, he would be competent to exercise the powers of the Registrar, both, under subsections (2) and (3) of section 73-ID of the 1960 Act. In this view of the matter, the second contention also fails and is accordingly rejected.
12. There is therefore, no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly rejected summarily.
13. Writ petition rejected.