{"id":228304,"date":"2010-04-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010"},"modified":"2017-10-23T12:51:45","modified_gmt":"2017-10-23T07:21:45","slug":"pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Pune District Supervision … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Pune District Supervision … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 April, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, R. M. Savant<\/div>\n
                                   1\n\n\n     Anando\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n                  WRIT PETITION NO.5463 OF 1996\n\n     1.   Pune District Supervision Co-operative) \n\n\n\n\n                                             \n          Society having its office at          )\n          9, New Shukrawar Peth,                )\n          Rameshwar Chowk,                      )\n          Pune 411 002.                         )\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n          Through its Chief Executive Officer   )\n          Shri D. T. Shirole\n                     ig                         ) ..Petitioners\n                                                )\n     2.   Daund Taluka Supervision Co-operative )\n          Society Limited                       )\n                   \n          having its office at                  )\n          Daund, District Pune.                 )\n          Through its Member Secretary          )\n          and Executive Officer                 )\n      \n\n\n          Shri N. D. Kapre                      )\n   \n\n\n\n                     Versus\n\n     1.   The State of Maharashtra                     )\n\n\n\n\n\n          through its Secretary to the                 )\n          Ministry of Co-operative and Textiles,       )\n          Mantralaya, Mumbai.                          )\n                                                       )\n     2.   The Registrar of Co-operative                )\n\n\n\n\n\n          Societies and Commissioner of                ) ..Respondents\n          Co-operation, Maharashtra State,             )\n          Pune.                                        )\n                                                       )\n     3.   The District Deputy Registrar                )\n          Co-operative Societies,                      )\n          Pune.                                        )\n\n\n\n\n                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:52:33 :::\n                                    2\n\n\n                                WITH \n                     WRIT PETITION NO.119 OF 2006\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n     1.   Mangalwedha Taluka Co-op. Supervisory)                               \n\n\n\n\n                                           \n          Society Limited, Mangalwedha,         )\n          District Solapur.                     )\n                                                )\n     2.   Karmala Taluka Co-op. Supervisory     )\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n          Society Limited, Karmala,             )\n          Taluka Karmala                        )\n          District Solapur.                     )\n                                                )\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n     3.   Malshiras Taluka Co-op. Supervisory   )\n          Society Limited, Malshiras, \n                        ig                      )\n          District Solapur.                     )\n                                                ) ..Petitioners\n     4.   Akkalkot Taluka Co-op. Supervisory    )\n                      \n          Society Limited,                      )\n          C\/o. Solapur D.C.Bank,                )\n          New Building, Station Road, Akkalkot, )\n          District Solapur.                     )\n      \n\n\n                                                )\n   \n\n\n\n     5.   Barshi Taluka Co-op. Supervisory      )\n          Society Limited, Taluka Barshi,       )\n          District Solapur.                     )\n                                                )\n\n\n\n\n\n     6.   North Solapur Taluka Co-op.Supervisory)\n          Society Limited, 46\/1,                )\n          Govind Sadan, Murarji Peth,           )\n          Solapur.                              )\n\n\n\n\n\n                          Versus\n\n     1.   The State of Maharashtra                  )\n          Through its Principal Secretary           ) \n          to the Ministry of Co-operation,          ) ..Respondents\n          Marketing and Textiles, Mantralaya,       )\n          Mumbai.                                   )\n\n\n\n\n                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:52:33 :::\n                                     3\n\n     2.   The Registrar of Co-op. Societies       )\n          & Commissioner of Co-operation,         )\n          Maharashtra State,                      )\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n          Pune.                                   )\n                                                  )\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n     3.   The District Deputy Registrar,          )\n          Co-operative Societies,                 )\n          Solapur.                                )\n                                                  )\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n     4.   The Divisional Joint Registrar,         ) \n          Co-operative Societies, Pune Division,  )\n          Pune.                                   )\n          having office at Sakhar Sankul,         )\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n          Shivajinagar,                           )\n          Pune.      ig                           )\n\n                              WITH \n                   WRIT PETITION NO.124 OF 2006\n                   \n          Solapur District Supervision Co-op.      )\n          Society Ltd., a Co-operative Society duly)\n          registered under the MCS Act, 1960       )\n      \n\n\n          bearing Registration No. SHP\/GEN\/33 )\n   \n\n\n\n          date 24.03.1971                          ) ..Petitioner\n          having its office at Solapur DCC Bank,  )\n          Extension Building, 46, Navi Peth,       )\n          Yogeshwari Complex,                      )\n\n\n\n\n\n          Solapur - 413 007.                       )\n\n                          Versus\n\n     1.   The State of Maharashtra through        )\n\n\n\n\n\n          its Principal Secretary to the Ministry of\n                                                  )\n          Co-operation, Marketing and Textiles,   )\n          Mantralaya,                             )\n          Mumbai.                                 )\n                                                  ) ..Respondents\n     2.   The Registrar of Co-operative Societies )\n          & Commissioner of Co-operation,         )\n          Maharashtra State,                      )\n          Pune.                                   )\n\n\n\n                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:52:33 :::\n                                     4\n\n     3.   The District Deputy Registrar,              )\n          Co-operative Societies,                     )\n          Solapur.                                    )\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n                                                      )\n     4.   The Divisional Joint Registrar,             )\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n          Co-operative Societies,                     )\n          Pune Division,                              )\n          Pune.                                       )\n          having Office at Sakhar Sankul,             )\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n          Shivajinagar,                               )\n          Pune.                                       )\n\n                              WITH \n\n\n\n\n                                  \n                  WRIT PETITION NO.2268 OF 2006\n                     \n          Kolhapur Zilla Dekhrekh Sahkari\n          Sanstha Maryadit, \n                                                      )\n                                                      )\n          Kolhapur.                                   ) ..Petitioner\n                    \n          having office at Shahpuri, 4th lane,        )\n          Kolhapur.                                   )\n\n                      Versus\n      \n   \n\n\n\n     1.   The State of Maharashtra                )\n          Through the Secretary,                  )\n          Co-operation Department,                )\n          Mantralaya,                             )\n\n\n\n\n\n          Bombay.                                 )\n                                                  )\n     2.   Commissioner for Co-operation           )\n          and Registrar, Co-operative Societies,  ) ..Respondents\n          Maharashtra State,                      )\n\n\n\n\n\n          Pune.                                   )\n                                                  )\n     3.   Divisional Joint Registrar,             )\n          Co-operative Societies, Pune Division,  )\n          Pune.                                   )\n                                                  )\n     4.   The District Deputy Registrar,          )\n          Co-operative Societies,                 )\n          Kolhapur.                               )\n\n\n\n                                             ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:52:33 :::\n                                              5\n\n     5.      Kolhapur District Central             )\n             Co-operative Bank Limited, Shahupuri, )\n             Kolhapur.                             )\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n                                    WITH \n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n                        WRIT PETITION NO.3145 OF 2006\n\n             Thane District Supervision                   )\n             Co-operative Society Limited,                )\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n             a Co-operative Society duly                  )\n             registered under the MCS Act, 1960           )\n             bearing Registration No.                     )\n             BOM\/GNL\/TNA\/34 date 06.04.1971               ) \n\n\n\n\n                                            \n             having its office                            ) ..Petitioner\n             at C\/o. Thane DCC Bank, \n                            ig                            )\n             Kanchanganga Building, 3rd floor,            )\n             Shivaji Peth, Thane (West),                  )\n             District Thane.                              )\n                          \n                                   Versus \n\n     1.      The State of Maharashtra through          )\n      \n\n\n             its Principal Secretary to the Ministry of)\n   \n\n\n\n             Co-operation, Marketing and Textiles,     )\n             Mantralaya,                               )\n             Mumbai.                                   )\n                                                       )\n\n\n\n\n\n     2.      Commissioner for Co-operation and         )\n             The Registrar of Co-operative Societies,  ) ..Respondents\n             Maharashtra State,                        )\n             Pune.                                     )\n                                                       )\n\n\n\n\n\n     3.      The District Deputy Registrar,            )\n             Co-operative Societies,                   )\n             Thane.                                    )\n                                                       )\n     4.      The Divisional Joint Registrar,           )\n             Co-operative Societies, Konkan Division, )\n             Mumbai.                                   )\n             Having Office at Konkan Bhavan,           )\n              rd\n             3  floor,                                 )\n\n\n\n                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:52:33 :::\n                                        6\n\n             Navi Mumbai - 400 614.                    )\n\n                                    WITH \n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n                        WRIT PETITION NO.4158 OF 2006\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n             Ahmednagar Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari        )\n             Sanstha Limited,                          )\n             Chaurana (Bk) Branch,                     )\n             behind Market Yard,                       )\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n             Ahmednagar,                               ) ..Petitioner\n             Through its Chief Executive Officer,      )\n             Sarjerao S\/o. Laxman Dahiphale,           )\n             Age : 58 years, Occu : service,           )\n\n\n\n\n                                      \n             R\/o. Ahmednagar,                          )\n             District Ahmednagar.\n                            ig                         )\n\n                             Versus \n                          \n     1.      The State of Maharashtra                )\n             Through the Secretary,                  )\n             Co-operation Department, Mantralaya,    )\n             Bombay.                                 )\n      \n\n\n                                                     )\n   \n\n\n\n     2.      The Commissioner for Co-operation,      )\n             Maharashtra State,                      )\n             Pune.                                   )\n                                                     ) ..Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n     3.      The Chief Executive Officer and         )\n             Divisional Joint Registrar,             )\n             Co-operative Societies, Pune Division,  )\n             Pune.                                   )\n                                                     )\n\n\n\n\n\n     4.      The District Deputy Registrar,          )\n             Co-operative Societies,                 )\n             Ahmednagar.                             )\n                                                     )\n     5.      Ahmednagar District Central             )\n             Co-operative Bank Limited,              )\n             Ahmednagar.                             )\n             Through its Managing Director           )\n\n\n\n\n                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:52:33 :::\n                                       7\n\n                                    WITH \n                        WRIT PETITION NO.7490 OF 2006\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n     1.      Sindhudurg Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari         )\n             Sanstha Maryadit,                          )\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n             Through its Director                       )\n             Shri Prakash Ramchandra Parab              )\n             At & Post Oras, Sindhudurg Nagari,         )\n             District Sindhudurg.                       )\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n                                                        ) ..Petitioners\n     2.      Kudal Taluka Dekhrekh Sahakari             )\n             Sangh Maryadit,                            )\n             Through its Director                       )\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n             Shri Shivram Bhau Jadhav                   )\n             At & Post Kudal\n                           ig                           )\n             District Sindhudurg.                       )\n\n                             Versus\n                         \n     1.      The State of Maharashtra                 )\n             Through its Secretary to the             )\n             Ministry of Co-operation &               )\n      \n\n\n             Textiles, Mantralaya,                    )\n   \n\n\n\n             Mumbai.                                  )\n                                                      )\n     2.      The Commissioner for Co-operation        )\n             and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, ) ..Respondents \n\n\n\n\n\n             Maharashtra State,                       )\n             Pune.                                    )\n                                                      )\n     3.      The Divisional Joint Registrar,          )\n             Co-operative Societies, Konkan Bhavan,  )\n\n\n\n\n\n             Belapur (Navi Mumbai).                   )\n\n     4.      The District Deputy Registrar,             )\n             Co-operative Societies,                    )\n             District Sindhudurg.                       )\n             Having office At & post Oras,              )\n             Sindhudurg Nagari,                         )\n             District Sindhudurg.                       )\n                                                        )\n\n\n\n                                               ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:52:33 :::\n                                           8\n\n     5.     The Sindhudurg District Central                   )\n            Co-operative Bank Limited,                        )\n            Oras, Sindhudurg Nagari,                          )\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n            District Sindhudurg.                              )\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n     Mr. G. S. Godbole with Ms. Manjiri Parasnis, Advocate, for the \n     Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.124\/2006, 5463\/1996, \n     119\/2006, 3145\/2006 and 4158\/2006\n     Mr. M. L. Patil, Advocate, for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n     2268\/2006 and Dr. D. R. Talankar, Advocate, for the Petitioners \n     in  Writ Petition No.7490\/2006\n     Mr. C. R. Sonawane, Assistant Government Pleader, for the \n     Respondent Nos.1 to 4 - State \n\n\n\n\n                                       \n                         ig      CORAM         :      A.M.KHANWILKAR &\n                                                      R.M.SAVANT, JJ.\n\n     JUDGMENT RESERVED ON   :                         17TH MARCH, 2010\n                       \n     JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :                         22ND APRIL, 2010\n\n     JUDGMENT ( PER R.M.SAVANT, J.)\n<\/pre>\n
     .             The above group of Petitions raise a common issue <\/p>\n
     and   involve   identical   facts   and   therefore,   are   heard   and <\/p>\n
     disposed of together.  The challenge in the above Writ Petitions, <\/p>\n
     save and except Writ Petition No.5463 of 1996 and W.P.No.7490 <\/p>\n
     of   2006   is   to   the   Circular   dated   28th  October,   2005   (Ex.O) <\/p>\n
     issued   by   Respondent   No.2,   the   Letter\/Order   dated   19th <\/p>\n
     October,   2005   (Ex.Q)   issued   by   the   Respondent   No.1   to   the <\/p>\n
     Respondent   No.2   and   the   Letter\/Order   dated   17th  December, <\/p>\n
     2005 (Ex.P) issued by the Respondent No.4.  In W. P .No.7490 <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                            9<\/span><\/p>\n
     of 2006 though the challenge is to the letter dtd. 28th October, <\/p>\n
     2005   the   other   letters   are   dtd.   29th  November,   2005   and   9th <\/p>\n
     January, 2006  In Writ Petition No.5463 of 1996, the challenge <\/p>\n
     is to the Letter\/Order dated 25th September, 1996 issued by the <\/p>\n
     Respondent No.3.   The Letter\/Order dated 19th  August, 1996 <\/p>\n
     issued by the Respondent No.1.   The said Letters\/Orders are <\/p>\n
     the   predecessors   to   the   Letters\/Orders   impugned   in   Writ <\/p>\n
     Petition No.124 of 2006 and the other companion matters.\n<\/p>\n
     2.            The   Petitioners   in   Writ   Petition   Nos.124   of   2006, <\/p>\n
     2268 of 1996, 3145 of 2006, 4158 of 2006, 5436 of 1996 and <\/p>\n
     7490   of   2006   are   the   District   Supervision   Co-operative <\/p>\n
     Societies namely the Solapur District Supervision Co-operative <\/p>\n
     Society,   Kolhapur   Zilla   Dekhrekh   Sahkari   Sanstha   Maryadit, <\/p>\n
     Thane   District   Supervision   Co-operative   Society   Limited, <\/p>\n
     Ahmednagar   Zilla   Dekhrekh   Sahakari   Sanstha   Limited, <\/p>\n
     Sindhudurg   Zilla   Dekhrekh   Sahakari   Sanstha   Maryadit   and <\/p>\n
     Pune   District   Supervision   Co-operative   Society   and   another.\n<\/p>\n
     The   Petitioner   in   Writ   Petition   No.119   of   2006   is   a   Taluka <\/p>\n
     Supervision Society namely Mangalwedha Taluka Co-operative <\/p>\n
     Supervision Society Limited, Solapur and others.  As mentioned <\/p>\n
     here   in   above,   all   the   aforesaid   District   Supervision   Co-\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
     operative   Societies   and   the   Taluka   Supervision   Co-operative <\/p>\n
     Society have challenged the Letters\/Orders mentioned here in <\/p>\n
     above.   For the sake of convenience the facts in Writ Petition <\/p>\n
     No.124 of  2006 would be  referred to,  as the  same has been <\/p>\n
     treated as lead matter.\n<\/p>\n
     3.            The genesis of the issue which arises in the above <\/p>\n
     Petitions   is   in   the   introduction   of   Section   69-A   in   the   Co-\n<\/p>\n
     operative Societies Act, 1960 (Hereinafter referred to as “Said <\/p>\n
     Act”) which was introduced by way of amendment in the said <\/p>\n
     Act   in   the   year   1975   with   a   view   to   provide   for   proper <\/p>\n
     supervision of the working of the Primary Agricultural Credit <\/p>\n
     Co-operative Societies and Multipurpose Co-operative Societies.\n<\/p>\n
     It appears that the State felt the need to establish the cadre of <\/p>\n
     Societies   to   be   known   as   the   Co-operative   State   Supervision <\/p>\n
     Cadre.     The   basic   intention   of   the   legislature   in   introducing <\/p>\n
     Section   69-A   seem   to   be   streamlining   the   manner   of <\/p>\n
     functioning   of   the   various   Societies  and   facilitate   the   speedy <\/p>\n
     recovery of  loan etc.  with a view to maintain proper growth <\/p>\n
     and   health   of   the   Co-operative   movement.     It   is   in   the   said <\/p>\n
     background that the said Section 69-A was introduced in the <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                         11<\/span><\/p>\n
     statute book in the year 1975.  The salient features of the said <\/p>\n
     Section 69-A are as under :-\n<\/p>\n
                   (i)   Co-operative   State   Cadre   constitution   of <\/p>\n
                   Secretaries   of     Primary   Agricultural   Credit   Co-
\n                   operative   Society,   Multipurpose   Co-operative
\n                   Society etc.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                   (ii)   Immediate   supervisory   control   of   the   cadre
\n                   given to the Taluka Supervision Society consisting
\n                   of the Societies Act to which the cadre persons are
\n                   deputed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (iii)   Fund   known   as   Co-operative   State   cadre <\/p>\n
                   employment   fund   established   for   the   meeting
\n                   expenses of the cadre.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (iv) Societies deriving the benefit from the cadre to
\n                   contribute   to   the   fund.     Such   Societies   to   be
\n                   notified by the State Government.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   (v) The State Government granted powers to make <\/p>\n
                   rules relating to the fund.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4.           The   State   Government   in   exercise   of   the   powers <\/p>\n
     conferred   under   Section   69-A(4)   of   the   said   Act   issued   a <\/p>\n
     Notification   bearing   No.CDR10179\/3008   –   (21)-2C   dated   3rd <\/p>\n
     March,   1979   directing   all   the   District   Central   Co-operative <\/p>\n
     Banks  except the Bombay DCC and the Ahmednagar DCC to <\/p>\n
     contribute   to  the   Supervision   Funds.     The   State   Government <\/p>\n
     also felt the need to appoint a Committee of experts to submit a <\/p>\n
     report to the State Government in respect of the problems faced <\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                            12<\/span><\/p>\n
     by and the functioning of the Supervision Societies and hence, <\/p>\n
     by   Government   Resolution   dated   11th  March,1989   the <\/p>\n
     Respondent   No.1   appointed   a   Committee   under   the <\/p>\n
     Chairmanship   of   Padmashree   Shamrao   Kadam   for   making <\/p>\n
     various recommendations to the State Government in respect of <\/p>\n
     the   cadre   of   Secretaries   (Gat   Sachiv).     The   said   Committee <\/p>\n
     carried out exhaustive work and submitted its report dated 5th <\/p>\n
     July, 1989 to the State Government.  The said report inter alia <\/p>\n
     disclosed   various   aspects   including   the   service   conditions   of <\/p>\n
     Secretaries,   the   control   to   be   exercised   on   the   Primary <\/p>\n
     Agricultural   Credit   Co-operative   Society.     Since   at   the   time <\/p>\n
     District Supervision Society was in existence, the Committee in <\/p>\n
     its report noted that it was intended to have full time Executive <\/p>\n
     Officer   preferably   an   officer   from   the   District   Central   Co-\n<\/p>\n
     operative   Bank   to   look   after   the   day   to   day   business   of   the <\/p>\n
     Supervision   Society.     It   was   further   observed   by   the   said <\/p>\n
     Committee   in   Clause   5.10   of   its   report   that   there   was   no <\/p>\n
     representation   of   the   Co-operative   Societies   in   which   the <\/p>\n
     Secretaries were deputed.   It was further observed that since <\/p>\n
     the   District   Deputy   Registrar   of   the   Co-operative   Society   in <\/p>\n
     particular   District   was   over   burdened   with   various   legal   and <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                            13<\/span><\/p>\n
     other works under the said Act, it was impossible for the said <\/p>\n
     District Deputy Registrar to devote much attention to the work <\/p>\n
     of   the   Supervision   Society.     It   was,   therefore,   the <\/p>\n
     recommendation   of   the   said   Committee   headed   by   Shri <\/p>\n
     Shamrao   Kadam   that   a   Committee   of   eight   persons   having <\/p>\n
     proper representation of the DCC Bank should be the Managing <\/p>\n
     Committee of such Society.   The aforesaid recommendation is <\/p>\n
     relevant from the point of view of the present Petitions.\n<\/p>\n
     5.            It   appears   that   the   State   Government   i.   e.\n<\/p>\n
     Respondent No.1 herein considered the said report  and after <\/p>\n
     such consideration issued a Government Resolution dated 13th <\/p>\n
     October, 1989 accepting various recommendations of the said <\/p>\n
     Shamrao Kadam Committee in respect of the recommendations <\/p>\n
     in   respect   of   the   District   Level   Supervision   Society.     It   was <\/p>\n
     decided that by the State Government vide Clause 4(a) to the <\/p>\n
     Schedule of the said Resolution to accept the recommendations <\/p>\n
     of   the   Committee.     In   the   light   of   the   said   Government <\/p>\n
     Resolution dated 13th October, 1989 the Model Bye laws for the <\/p>\n
     District   Co-operative   Supervision   Societies   were   prepared   by <\/p>\n
     the   Registrar.     The   said   Model   Byelaws   were   thereafter <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                          14<\/span><\/p>\n
     approved.   The Petitioners above named, who are the District <\/p>\n
     Supervision Societies adopted the Model Byelaws.   Under the <\/p>\n
     said   Model   Byelaws     especially   Bye-law   Number   15,   the <\/p>\n
     constitution   of   the   Managing   Committee   of   the   District <\/p>\n
     Supervision   Society   having   a   total   of   ten   members   is <\/p>\n
     conceptualized.     The   said   Clause   provides   that   the   Assistant <\/p>\n
     Registrar of Co-operative Societies or an Officer of the District <\/p>\n
     Central   Co-operative   Bank   to   be   appointed   as   Ex-officio <\/p>\n
     officer\/Chief   Executive   Officer   either   on   deputation   or   with <\/p>\n
     additional charge.  Thus, it was left to the Managing Committee <\/p>\n
     of the Societies like the Petitioners to choose as to whether an <\/p>\n
     Officer of the rank of the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative <\/p>\n
     Department or an Officer of the District Central Co-operative <\/p>\n
     Bank to be appointed as the Executive Officer or Secretary.\n<\/p>\n
     6.           The   purpose   and   intent   of   establishment   of   the <\/p>\n
     Supervisory   Co-operative   Societies   at   the   Taluka   and   District <\/p>\n
     level is to have direct and effective control over the working of <\/p>\n
     the various Primary Rural Credit Co-operative Societies.   The <\/p>\n
     intention is to see that the work of recovery of loans which are <\/p>\n
     lent   and   disbursed   by   the   various   Societies   to   its   members <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                           15<\/span><\/p>\n
     should be done properly and efficiently, and also to ensure that <\/p>\n
     the Societies make repayment of their loans which are taken <\/p>\n
     from the District Central Co-operative Banks.   As can be seen <\/p>\n
     the approved Model Bye-laws give a choice to the District Co-\n<\/p>\n
     operative   Supervision   Society   to   have   either   an   Assistant <\/p>\n
     Registrar or an Officer from the District Central Co-operative <\/p>\n
     Bank as its Chief Executive Officer according to its choice.  The <\/p>\n
     Co-operative   movement   at   the   Taluka   level   depends   upon <\/p>\n
     finance from the District Co-operative Central Banks and since <\/p>\n
     the  loans  are  provided  by the  concerned District  Central Co-\n<\/p>\n
     operative   Bank   a   proper   control   of   the   District   Central   Co-\n<\/p>\n
     operative   Bank   over   the   recovery   of   loans   was   thought <\/p>\n
     essential.   With a view to give some sort of autonomy to the <\/p>\n
     District Co-operative Supervision   Societies, they were given a <\/p>\n
     choice of either having an Officer from the District Central Co-\n<\/p>\n
     operative Bank or an Officer of the Co-operative Department as <\/p>\n
     Member Secretary-cum-Chief Executive Officer.  Since the work <\/p>\n
     of the Chief Executive Officer of the District Supervision Society <\/p>\n
     involves   the   work   of   supervision   over   the   work   of  the   Block <\/p>\n
     Secretary and recovery of the loan of the District Central Co-\n<\/p>\n
     operative Bank, a person having expertise in financial matters <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                           16<\/span><\/p>\n
     and recovery of loans in the Co-operative Sectors was required <\/p>\n
     to   be   the   Chief   Executive   Officer   of   the   Taluka   Co-operative <\/p>\n
     Society.   The approved Model Bye-laws, therefore, provide for <\/p>\n
     autonomy   to   the   Supervision   Societies   in   the   matter   of   the <\/p>\n
     appointment   of   the   Chief   Executive   Officer.     It   would   be <\/p>\n
     relevant to note that the District Central Co-operative Bank in <\/p>\n
     each of the Districts in respect of which the Petitions have been <\/p>\n
     filed make a major contribution to the Supervision Fund from <\/p>\n
     which   the  affairs   of  the   respective   Petitioners  –  Societies  are <\/p>\n
     conducted.  The contribution of the concerned District Central <\/p>\n
     Co-operative Bank is increasing by the year and due to the said <\/p>\n
     contribution   made   by   the   District   Central  Co-operative  Bank, <\/p>\n
     the   Societies   like   the   Petitioners   above   named   are   able   to <\/p>\n
     sustain themselves and function.\n<\/p>\n
                   It would be pertinent to note that the Apex Society <\/p>\n
     of   the   Supervisory   Co-operative   Society   is   the   Maharashtra <\/p>\n
     Government   Sanvargikaran Society Limited, Pune.   The said <\/p>\n
     Society,   in   its   Annual   General   Meeting     has   decided   that   it <\/p>\n
     would be in the interest of the Supervision Society to appoint <\/p>\n
     employee   of   the   District   Central   Co-operative   Bank   as   Chief <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                           17<\/span><\/p>\n
     Executive Officer by Resolution No.1A passed in the meeting <\/p>\n
     dated   12th  November,   1994,   it   was   decided   that   the <\/p>\n
     Commissioner of Co-operation, be reported to issue a specific <\/p>\n
     direction to appoint a Bank Officer as Chief Executive Officer of <\/p>\n
     the District Supervision Society.   It would also be pertinent to <\/p>\n
     note that Resolution was also passed in the meeting dated 11th <\/p>\n
     October,   1994   of   the   Apex   Society   that   in   all   the   District <\/p>\n
     Supervision   Co-operative   Societies,   a   Officer   from   the <\/p>\n
     concerned DCC Bank should be appointed as Chief Executive <\/p>\n
     Officer.  A meeting was also held on 12th November, 1999 under <\/p>\n
     the chairmanship of the then Hon’ble Minister for Co-operation <\/p>\n
     of the State of Maharashtra in respect of the difficulties of the <\/p>\n
     Block Secretary and it was clarified therein vide Resolution No.<\/p>\n
     3 that the Executive Officer of the District Supervision Society <\/p>\n
     and Taluka Supervision Society should be appointed from the <\/p>\n
     DCC Bank and that if necessary amendment be made to that <\/p>\n
     effect in the Bye-laws.   From the above conspectus of facts it <\/p>\n
     can   be   seen   that   a   conscious   decision   was   taken   at   the <\/p>\n
     Government level to appoint an Officer of the District Central <\/p>\n
     Co-operative   Bank   as   the   Executive   Officer   of   the   District <\/p>\n
     Supervision   Society   so   as   to   ensure   timely   payment   of   the <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                           18<\/span><\/p>\n
     Salary   of   the   Block   Secretaries  and  to   ensure   proper   control <\/p>\n
     over   the   working   of   the   Co-operative   Credit   Societies   and <\/p>\n
     Primary Societies with a view to have proper loan recovery, it <\/p>\n
     was also felt necessary that District Central Co-operative Bank <\/p>\n
     should have control over working of the Credit Society.   From <\/p>\n
     the   averments   made   in   all   the   above   Petitions,   all   the <\/p>\n
     Petitioners   above   named   which   are   District   Supervision <\/p>\n
     Societies had appointed an Officer from the concerned District <\/p>\n
     Central Co-operative Bank as its Chief Executive Officer-cum-\n<\/p>\n
     Member Secretary and it is their case that due to the experience <\/p>\n
     and   knowledge   of   the   said   Officer,   there   was   substantial <\/p>\n
     improvement   in   the   working   of   the   Petitioner   –   Societies.\n<\/p>\n
     There was also an autonomy vested in them either to appoint <\/p>\n
     an   Officer   from   the   Co-operative   Department   of   the   State <\/p>\n
     Government   i.   e.   Assistant   Registrar   or   an   Officer   from   the <\/p>\n
     District Central Co-operative Bank as  Executive  Officer.   This <\/p>\n
     autonomy was available to them under the Bye laws which are <\/p>\n
     duly approved by the State Government inasmuch as there are <\/p>\n
     model   Byelaws   prepared   by   the   Respondent   No.2   herein.\n<\/p>\n
     Therefore, there was no authority with the Respondents herein <\/p>\n
     to direct the Petitioner – Societies to appoint an Officer from <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                              19<\/span><\/p>\n
     the   Co-operative   Department   as   their   Secretary\/Executive <\/p>\n
     Officer.     As   such   the   impugned   directions   have   the   effect   of <\/p>\n
     curtailing   the   rights,   that   the   Petitioner   –   Societies   have   as <\/p>\n
     regards their management.\n<\/p>\n
     7.             It   appears   that   the   Respondent   No.3   herein   by <\/p>\n
     Order   dated   28th  September,   1996   directed   the   Petitioners   –\n<\/p>\n
     Societies that in pursuance of the letter dated 19th August, 1996 <\/p>\n
     issued   by   the   Respondent   No.1   herein   i.   e.   the   State <\/p>\n
     Government, he was appointing himself as Secretary\/Executive <\/p>\n
     Officer   of   the   Petitioner   –   Societies.     As   the   said   letter   20th <\/p>\n
     September,   1996   indicates   the   same   was   issued   by   the <\/p>\n
     Respondent No.3 in view of the letter dated 19th August, 1996 <\/p>\n
     issued   by   the   Respondent   No.1.     Aggrieved   by   the   said <\/p>\n
     Letter\/Order issued by the Respondent No.1 dated 19th August, <\/p>\n
     1996 and the Letter\/Order dated 20th  September, 1996 issued <\/p>\n
     by the Respondent No.3.  The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.119 <\/p>\n
     of 2006 had filed Writ Petition No.4905 of 1996 in this Court <\/p>\n
     challenging   the   legality,   validity   and   propriety   of   the   said <\/p>\n
     Letters\/Orders.  The said Writ Petition came to be admitted by <\/p>\n
     this   Court.     An   interim   relief   came   to   be   granted   thereby <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                          20<\/span><\/p>\n
     staying the appointment of the Respondent No.2 – as the Chief <\/p>\n
     Executive   Officer  of  the   Petitioner   –  Societies.     Another  Writ <\/p>\n
     Petition No.4904 of 1996 came to be filed by one Mohol Taluka <\/p>\n
     Sahakari   Maryadit   and   another   challenging   the   same   Order <\/p>\n
     dated 19th  August, 1996 passed by the Respondent No.1.   The <\/p>\n
     said   Writ   Petition   was   also   admitted.     Interim   reliefs   were <\/p>\n
     granted staying the said Letter\/Order dated 19th August, 1996.\n<\/p>\n
     8.<\/p>\n
                  Whilst   the   said   Writ   Petitions   were   pending,   a <\/p>\n
     Circular came  to be issued on 20th  January, 2003 which was <\/p>\n
     purportedly issued as a consequence of the decision taken in <\/p>\n
     the   meeting   conveyed   in   the   office   of   NABARD.     The   said <\/p>\n
     decision was to the effect that in all the District Supervision Co-\n<\/p>\n
     operative Societies,  the officer of the concerned District Central <\/p>\n
     Co-operative Bank should be appointed as the Chief Executive <\/p>\n
     Officer.   The said Circular, therefore, was placed on record by <\/p>\n
     the Petitioner – Societies by way of an Affidavit-in-rejoinder in <\/p>\n
     the said Writ Petition No.4905 of 1996.  The said Writ Petitions <\/p>\n
     being 4904 of 1996 and 4905 of 1996 were disposed of by this <\/p>\n
     Court by accepting the Circular dated 23rd January, 2003 issued <\/p>\n
     by the Commissioner for Co-operation and the Registrar of the <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                           21<\/span><\/p>\n
     Co-operative Society, that the officer of the concerned District <\/p>\n
     Central Co-operative Bank would function as Chief Executive <\/p>\n
     Officer   and   Member   Secretary   of   the   concerned   District   and <\/p>\n
     Taluka   level   Supervision   Societies   by   Judgment   and   Order <\/p>\n
     dated 27th February, 2003.  It is the case of the Petitioners that <\/p>\n
     the   said   Judgment   and   Order   dated   27th  February,   2003   has <\/p>\n
     attained finality as the matter was not carried in Appeal to the <\/p>\n
     Apex Court by the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
     9.            Inspite of the said Circular dated 23rd January, 2003 <\/p>\n
     issued by the Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of <\/p>\n
     Co-operative Society on the basis of which Writ Petition Nos.\n<\/p>\n
     4904   of   1996   and  4905   of   1996   came   to  be   disposed   of  by <\/p>\n
     Order dated 27th February, 2003.  The Chief Executive Officer of <\/p>\n
     the   Maharashtra   State   Cadres   Co-operative   Society   Limited, <\/p>\n
     who is Divisional Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, <\/p>\n
     Pune   Region,   Pune,   informed   the   Petitioners   that   the <\/p>\n
     Respondent No.2 herein has issued Order\/Circular dated 28th <\/p>\n
     October,   2005   directing   that   the   District   Deputy   Registrar   of <\/p>\n
     Co-operative Societies in every District should be appointed as <\/p>\n
     Member Secretary  and  Chief Executive  Officer of  the  District <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:33 :::<\/span>
\n                                            22<\/span><\/p>\n
     Supervisory   Society   and   directing   that   the   Deputy <\/p>\n
     Registrar\/Assistant   Registrar   of   Co-operative   Society   in   every <\/p>\n
     Taluka should be appointed as Member Secretary and Executive <\/p>\n
     Officer   of   the   Taluka   Supervisory   Society.     The   said   Circular <\/p>\n
     dated   20th  October,   2005,   it   appears   has   been   issued   by   the <\/p>\n
     Respondent No.2.  On the basis of said Letter\/Order dated 19th <\/p>\n
     October,   2005   issued   by   the   Respondent   No.1,   it   further <\/p>\n
     appears   that   on   the   basis   of   the   Letter\/Order   dated   19th <\/p>\n
     October,   2005,   the   Respondent   No.4   herein   has   issued   the <\/p>\n
     Letter\/Order dated 17th December, 2005 and by the said Order, <\/p>\n
     the Respondent No.4 herein has directed that in furtherence of <\/p>\n
     the Circular dated 28th October, 2005 issued by the Respondent <\/p>\n
     No.2,   he   was   appointing   the   Respondent   No.3   herein   as <\/p>\n
     Member   Secretary\/Executive   Officer   of   the   Petitioner   –\n<\/p>\n
     Societies.     As   indicated   above,   the   said   Circular   dated   20th <\/p>\n
     October,   2005,   the   letter   dated   8th  November,   2005   and   the <\/p>\n
     Order dated 17th December, 2005 issued by the Respondent No.<\/p>\n
     4 are impugned in the above Petitions.  As mentioned earlier in <\/p>\n
     so   far   as   Writ   Petition   of   1996   is   concerned,   the   said   Writ <\/p>\n
     Petition raises the same challenge as raised in the year 1996 by <\/p>\n
     Writ Petition Nos.4904 of 1996 and 4905 of 1996 challenging <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                            23<\/span><\/p>\n
     the predecessor\/Order\/Circular issued by the Respondent No.1 <\/p>\n
     which were impliedly withdrawn in view of the Circular dated <\/p>\n
     20th  January,   2003   issued   by   the   Commissioner   for   Co-\n<\/p>\n
     operation   and   Registrar   of   the   Societies   and   on   the   basis   of <\/p>\n
     which the said Writ Petitions being numbers 4904 of 1996 and <\/p>\n
     4905 of 1996 were disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
     10.           We   have   heard   Mr.   G.   S.   Gobdole,   the   learned <\/p>\n
     Counsel for the Petitioners in all the Writ Petitions except Writ <\/p>\n
     Petition Nos.2268 of 2006 and 7490 of 2006, Mr. M. L. Patil, <\/p>\n
     the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in W. P. No. <\/p>\n
     2268\/2006, Dr. D. R. Talankar in W. P. No.7490\/2006 and Mr. <\/p>\n
     C. R. Sonawane,  the learned Assistant Government Pleader.\n<\/p>\n
     11.           On behalf of the Petitioners, it is contended by the <\/p>\n
     learned Counsel Shri Godbole that the Respondent No.1 – State <\/p>\n
     having  appointed  the  said  Shamrao  Kadam  Committee   to  go <\/p>\n
     into   the   various   aspects   of   the   functioning   of   the   said <\/p>\n
     Supervision   Societies   and   having   accepted   the <\/p>\n
     recommendations   of   the   said   Committee   by   issuing   a <\/p>\n
     Government Resolution dated 13th  October, 1989.   It was not <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                          24<\/span><\/p>\n
     open for the Respondent No.1 to take a decision contrary to <\/p>\n
     decision   which   has   been   taken   vide   said   Government <\/p>\n
     Resolution dated 13th  October, 1989 without there being any <\/p>\n
     material   to   support   such   a   decision.     The   learned   Counsel <\/p>\n
     further submitted that the Orders do not disclose that the State <\/p>\n
     Government has taken a decision pursuant to any new study <\/p>\n
     being carried out as regards the functioning of the Supervision <\/p>\n
     Societies.  The entire action, therefore, according to the learned <\/p>\n
     Counsel   in   issuing   the   impugned   Orders   is   capricious   and <\/p>\n
     arbitrary.\n<\/p>\n
     12.          The   learned   Counsel   further   submitted   that   the <\/p>\n
     model Bye-laws have been approved by the Respondent No.2 in <\/p>\n
     which is ingrained the decision of leaving it to the Supervision <\/p>\n
     Societies   to   appoint   the   Assistant   Registrar   or   the   Deputy <\/p>\n
     Registrar   as   the   Chief   Executive   Officer   of   the   Supervision <\/p>\n
     Societies.     Having   approved   the   Model   Bye-laws,   if   the <\/p>\n
     Respondent   No.1   wanted   a   change   in   the   set   up   then   an <\/p>\n
     appropriate action under Section 14 of the said Act ought to <\/p>\n
     have   been   taken  by  the   Respondent  No.1   to amend  the  said <\/p>\n
     Model   Bye-laws.     The   learned   Counsel   submitted   that   the <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                           25<\/span><\/p>\n
     Respondents   in   issuing   the   directions   as   contained   in   the <\/p>\n
     impugned   Letters\/Orders   have   virtually   interfered   in   the <\/p>\n
     management of the Supervision Societies by directing them to <\/p>\n
     appoint   the   District   Deputy   Registrar   as   the   Secretary\/Chief <\/p>\n
     Executive Officer of the Supervision Societies which is contrary <\/p>\n
     to  the   mandate  of  Sections  72   and  73   of  the  said  Act.    The <\/p>\n
     learned   Counsel   further   submitted   that   in   view   of   the   past <\/p>\n
     litigation wherein the predecessor Letters\/Orders issued by the <\/p>\n
     Respondents whereby similar action taken by the Respondents <\/p>\n
     was challenged and which Writ Petitions were disposed of in <\/p>\n
     view of the Circular issued by the State Government dated 23rd <\/p>\n
     January,   2003,   whereby   the   Respondents   had   once   again <\/p>\n
     reverted  to  the   original  position   of  leaving  the  choice   to  the <\/p>\n
     Supervision   Societies   of   appointing   either   the   Assistant <\/p>\n
     Registrar   or   an   Officer   of   the   District   Central   Co-operative <\/p>\n
     Bank.  The Respondents therefore in now issuing the impugned <\/p>\n
     Orders   have   acted  in   an   unreasonable   and  arbitrary   manner.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the fact <\/p>\n
     that the earlier litigation challenging an identical action taken <\/p>\n
     by   the   State   having   been   disposed   of   on   the   basis   of   the <\/p>\n
     Circular   dated   23rd  January,   2003,   it   was   not   open   for   the <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                         26<\/span><\/p>\n
     Respondent No.1 to once again resort to the self same action <\/p>\n
     without there being any material available with the Respondent <\/p>\n
     No.1.  According to the learned Counsel the said Order passed <\/p>\n
     in the said Writ Petitions having become final, it was not open <\/p>\n
     for the State to resort to the same action.  The learned  Counsel <\/p>\n
     lastly submitted that the Respondents in issuing the impugned <\/p>\n
     Letters\/Orders have thereby acted virtually in total disregard to <\/p>\n
     the Orders passed in the said Writ Petition Nos.4904 of 1996 <\/p>\n
     and  4905  of   1996.     The   learned  Counsel  for  the  Petitioners, <\/p>\n
     therefore, submitted that the above Writ Petitions are required <\/p>\n
     to   be   allowed   by   quashing   and   setting   aside   the   impugned <\/p>\n
     Letters\/Orders.\n<\/p>\n
     13.          The learned Counsel Shri M. L. Patil and Dr. D. R.\n<\/p>\n
     Talankar for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.2268\/2006 and <\/p>\n
     Writ   Petition   No.7490\/2006   did   not   advance   any   other <\/p>\n
     submission,   however   they   submitted   that   the   Writ   Petitions <\/p>\n
     filed by the said Petitioners should be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     14.          On behalf of the Respondents the learned Assistant <\/p>\n
     Government   Pleader   Shri   Sonawane   submitted   that   the <\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                             27<\/span><\/p>\n
     impugned Letters\/Orders are issued under the provisions of the <\/p>\n
     said   Act   and   especially   Section   69-A   thereof.     The   learned <\/p>\n
     Assistant   Government   Pleader   submitted   that   the   said   action <\/p>\n
     has   been   taken   with   a   view   to   see   that   the   policies   of   the <\/p>\n
     Respondent No.1 i. e. the State are implemented.  The learned <\/p>\n
     Assistant   Government   Pleader   further   submitted   that   the <\/p>\n
     impugned Letters\/Orders have been issued as the Respondent <\/p>\n
     No.1   was   of   the   view   that   the   control   of   the   Supervision <\/p>\n
     Societies ought to be in a person, who is independent and who <\/p>\n
     is not amenable to the influence of the Managing Committee as <\/p>\n
     it was seen that the Managing Committee at times is influenced <\/p>\n
     by   vested   interest   in   particular   matters.     The   learned   AGP <\/p>\n
     submitted  that   in   any  event,   the   post   of  the   Chief  Executive <\/p>\n
     Officer has been created to act as a control over the affairs and <\/p>\n
     management of the Societies so that the Society is not run in a <\/p>\n
     manner   which   is   detrimental   to   the   Co-operative   movement.\n<\/p>\n
     Hence, to ensure the said objective the Respondents thought it <\/p>\n
     fit   to   issue   the   Letters\/Orders   which   are   impugned   in   the <\/p>\n
     present Petitions.\n<\/p>\n
     15.           We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                           28<\/span><\/p>\n
     and   have   given   our   anxious   consideration   to   the   rival <\/p>\n
     contentions.\n<\/p>\n
     16.          In view of the stand taken by the Respondent No.1 <\/p>\n
     – State that the impugned Letters\/Orders have been issued in <\/p>\n
     terms of Section 69-A of the said Act.  It would be appropriate <\/p>\n
     to consider whether  the  said provision  confers  power on  the <\/p>\n
     Respondent No.1 to take the action as has been taken in the <\/p>\n
     instant   case.     The   said   Section   69-A   is   reproduced   herein <\/p>\n
     under :-\n<\/p>\n
                  “(69-A. Constitution of Co-operative State Cadre
\n                  of   Secretaries   of   certain   societies   and <\/p>\n
                  establishment   of   Employment   Fund   for   such <\/p>\n
                  cadre.  –   (1)   There   shall   be   constituted   a   Co-
\n                  operative   State   Cadre   of   Secretaries   of   primary
\n                  agricultural   credit   societies,   multipurpose   co-
\n                  operative   societies   and   service   co-operatives   and <\/p>\n
                  such other classes of societies as may be prescribed
\n                  in this behalf (hereinafter in this section referred to
\n                  as   “the   Co-operative   State   Cadre”)   consisting   of
\n                  persons   recruited   for   this   purpose   by   the   Central
\n                  Societies   notified   in   this   behalf   by   the   State <\/p>\n
                  Government.     The   number   of   persons   to   be
\n                  recruited   and   their   conditions   of   service   shall   be
\n                  determined by the Central Societies in accordance
\n                  with   such   general   or   special   guidelines,   if  any,   as
\n                  may be issued by the State Government, from time
\n                  to time.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  (2)   A   Central   Society   may,   from   time   to   time,
\n                  depute any person appointed by it to that Cadre to <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:34 :::<\/span>
\n                               29<\/span><\/p>\n
      work  under  any  society   referred   to  in   sub-section
\n      (1), as it may consider necessary.   Where any such
\n      person   is   posted   to   work   under   any   society,   his <\/p>\n
      services shall be taken over by the society on such
\n      post, for such period and on such other terms and <\/p>\n
      conditions,  as the  Central Society  may  determine,
\n      but the person so posted shall draw his salary and
\n      allowances   from   the   Fund   established   under   sub-
\n      section (3).\n<\/p>\n
      (2A) The immediate initial  supervisory control on
\n      the person appointed to the cadre and deputed or
\n      posted   to   work   as   secretary   under   each   of   the <\/p>\n
      societies referred to in sub-section (1) shall be with
\n      the   Taluka   Supervision   Society   consisting   of   the <\/p>\n
      societies,   in   each  respective   Taluka  to  which  such
\n      persons   are   deputed,   as   members   thereof   and
\n      registered for the purpose.  The Taluka Supervision <\/p>\n
      Society,   shall   exercise   such   powers   and   discharge
\n      such   functions   or   perform   such   duties   as   may   be
\n      conferred or imposed on it by the bye-laws of such
\n      society.\n<\/p>\n
      (3) An Apex society notified in this behalf by the
\n      State   Government   shall   establish   a   Fund   to   be
\n      called ” the Co-operative State Cadre Employment
\n      Fund”, which when established, shall be deemed to <\/p>\n
      have been established with effect from the 1st day of
\n      July,   1973.     It   shall   be   utilised   for   meeting   the
\n      expenses   on   the   salaries,   allowances   and   other
\n      emoluments to be paid to the persons appointed to
\n      the   Co-operative   State   Cadre   and   the   other <\/p>\n
      expenditure relating to the Cadre.\n<\/p>\n
      (4) (a) Every society or class or classes of societies,
\n      which   in   the   opinion   of   the   State   Government,
\n      derive   any  benefit,   directly or  indirectly,   from  the
\n      services   of   any   Secretary   belonging   to   the   Co-
\n      operative State Cadre of Secretaries, and <\/p>\n
      (b)   Every   other   body   corporate   carrying   on   any <\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                30<\/span><\/p>\n
      trade,   business   or   industry   or   class   or   classes   of
\n      such corporate bodies, which in the opinion of the
\n      State   Government,   derives   such   benefit   as <\/p>\n
      aforesaid,   and   which   are   notified   by   the   State
\n      Government   in   this  behalf,   from   time   to  time,   by <\/p>\n
      general or special order, shall, with effect from the
\n      1st day of July, 1977, contribute annually to the said
\n      Fund, at such rate and in such manner as may be
\n      prescribed,   and   different   rates   may   be   prescribed <\/p>\n
      for different societies or other corporate bodies or
\n      class   or   classes   of   societies   or   class   or   classes   of
\n      other corporate bodies.   In determining the rate or
\n      rates   of   contribution,   the   State   Government   shall <\/p>\n
      take into consideration the expenditure referred to
\n      in sub-section (3), the services likely to be rendered <\/p>\n
      and the financial condition of the societies or other
\n      bodies concerned.\n<\/p>\n
      Explanation. – Notwithstanding anything contained
\n      in   any   law   for   the   time   being   in   force,   for   the
\n      purposes of levy and collection of the contribution
\n      to   the   said   Fund   by   any   other   corporate   body   to <\/p>\n
      which section applies, such corporate body shall be <\/p>\n
      deemed to be a society governed by this Act.)<\/p>\n
      (5)   Where   there   a   failure   to   comply   with   the
\n      requirements of the last preceding sub-section, the <\/p>\n
      Registrar may serve a demand notice on the society
\n      concerned   to   pay   the   contribution   within   two
\n      months  from   the   date   of   demand.     Such  demand
\n      shall be a charge on the income of the society.   If
\n      the   contribution   is   not   paid   within   the   period <\/p>\n
      aforesaid,   the   Registrar   may   direct   any   Bank   or
\n      person having custody of the funds of the society to
\n      pay   the   amount   of   the   contribution   immediately,
\n      and   such   Bank   or   person   shall   comply   with   the
\n      orders   of   the   Registrar.     Every   payment   made
\n      pursuant   to   such   direction   shall   be   a   sufficient
\n      discharge to such Bank or person from all liability
\n      to the society in respect of any sum so paid by it or
\n      him out of the moneys of the society in his custody.\n<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                           31<\/span><\/p>\n
                  (6)   The   State   Government   may   make   rules
\n                  regulating all matters connected with or ancillary to <\/p>\n
                  the   custody   and   maintenance   of,   the   payment   of
\n                  moneys into, and the expenditure and withdrawal <\/p>\n
                  of moneys from, the said Fund.\n<\/p>\n
                  (7)   Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   sub-
\n                  sections   (1)   to   (6),   on   and   from   the   1st  day   of <\/p>\n
                  January,   2009,   nothing   in   sub-sections   (1)   to   (6)
\n                  shall apply to a co-operative credit structure entity.)<\/p>\n
     17.          A  reading  of  the   said  Section,   therefore,  discloses <\/p>\n
     that it is under the said Section that Co-operative State Cadre <\/p>\n
     of     Secretaries   of   primary   agricultural   Credit   Societies, <\/p>\n
     multipurpose   Co-operative   Societies   and   service   Co-operative <\/p>\n
     Societies   and   such   other   classes   of   Societies   as   may   be <\/p>\n
     prescribed in that behalf consisting of persons recruited for this <\/p>\n
     purpose by the Central Societies notified in this behalf of the <\/p>\n
     State Government, is postulated.   The power of regulation, if <\/p>\n
     any, as can be seen is only in sub-section 6 of the said provision.\n<\/p>\n
     The   said   regulatory   power   is   only   limited   to   all   matters <\/p>\n
     connected with or ancillary to the custody and maintenance of <\/p>\n
     the   payment   of   monies   into   and   the   expenditure   and <\/p>\n
     withdrawal of monies from the said fund.   The said Section, <\/p>\n
     therefore, does not give any regulatory power in so far as the <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                            32<\/span><\/p>\n
     management of the Societies is concerned which management <\/p>\n
     in terms of the said Act is vested with the Managing Committee <\/p>\n
     of the Society.   In our view, therefore, reliance placed by the <\/p>\n
     Respondent   No.1   on   Section   69-A   for   issuing   the   impugned <\/p>\n
     letters\/orders   is   totally   misplaced   hence,   the   impugned <\/p>\n
     letters\/orders   which   have   the   effect   of   interfering   with   the <\/p>\n
     management of the Societies do not have the statutory backing <\/p>\n
     and are therefore illegal.\n<\/p>\n
     18.           It  would  be  significant  to note that after  the  said <\/p>\n
     Section   69-A   was   introduced   in   the   statute   book   the <\/p>\n
     Respondent No.1 – State had appointed a Committee headed <\/p>\n
     by an expert in the Co-operative field Shri Shamrao Kadam, for <\/p>\n
     making   various   recommendations  to   the   Respondent   No.1   in <\/p>\n
     respect of the cadre of the Secretaries.  The said Committee had <\/p>\n
     gone   into   various   aspects   of   the   service   conditions   of   the <\/p>\n
     Secretaries and the control over the Supervision Societies over <\/p>\n
     the Primary Societies.   The Committee in its report has noted <\/p>\n
     that   it   was   necessary   to   have   a   full   time   Executive   Officer <\/p>\n
     preferably an Officer from the concerned District Central Co-\n<\/p>\n
     operative   Bank   to   look   after   day   to   day   business   of   the <\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                            33<\/span><\/p>\n
     Supervision   Societies.     It   was   further   observed   by   the <\/p>\n
     Committee   that   since   the   District   Deputy   Registrar   of   Co-\n<\/p>\n
     operative   Societies   in   the   particular   District   was   already <\/p>\n
     overburdened   with   various   legal   and   other   matters   falling <\/p>\n
     within his jurisdiction under the said Act.  It was not practically <\/p>\n
     possible for the District Deputy Registrar to pay much attention <\/p>\n
     to the work of the Supervision Societies.  It was, therefore, the <\/p>\n
     recommendation of the said Shamrao Kadam Committee that a <\/p>\n
     Committee   of   eight   persons   having   a   representative   of   the <\/p>\n
     District Central Co-operative Bank who should be the Managing <\/p>\n
     Committee   of   such   Supervision   Societies.   It   is   further, <\/p>\n
     significant to note that the said report of the Shamrao Kadam <\/p>\n
     Committee   was   accepted   by   the   State   Government   and <\/p>\n
     consequently, Government Resolution dated 13th October, 1989 <\/p>\n
     came   to   be   issued   accepting   the   various   recommendations <\/p>\n
     made by the said Shamrao Kadam Committee.  Clause 4(a) of <\/p>\n
     the   Schedule   to   the   said   Government   Resolution   specifically <\/p>\n
     refers to the recommendations of the Committee in respect of <\/p>\n
     the   District   Level   Supervision   Societies.     As   a   result   of   the <\/p>\n
     acceptance   of   the   Report   of   the   said   Shamrao   Kadam <\/p>\n
     Committee,   Model   Bye-laws   were   prepared   by   the   Registrar <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                       34<\/span><\/p>\n
     and approved.   In terms of Bye law No.15 of the Model Bye <\/p>\n
     laws an Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society or an Officer <\/p>\n
     of the District Central Co-operative Bank is to be appointed as <\/p>\n
     Ex-officio Secretary\/Chief Executive Officer of the Supervision <\/p>\n
     Societies.     The   aforesaid   facts,   therefore,   indicate   that <\/p>\n
     Respondent No.1 had taken a conscious decision based on the <\/p>\n
     recommendations   of   the   Shamrao   Kadam   Committee   which <\/p>\n
     decision was reflected in the approved Model Bye Laws framed <\/p>\n
     by the Registrar and therefore, the State without there being <\/p>\n
     any material on record or without there being any further study <\/p>\n
     being carried out could not have reversed the decision already <\/p>\n
     taken of leaving it to the Supervision Societies either to appoint <\/p>\n
     the Assistant Registrar or an Officer of the District Central Co-\n<\/p>\n
     operative Bank as the Chief Executive Officer.   The impugned <\/p>\n
     Letters\/Orders, therefore, in our view are unsustainable on the <\/p>\n
     said ground also.\n<\/p>\n
     19.         The said decision in our view is also contrary to the <\/p>\n
     Bye-Laws especially in the fact situation of this case wherein <\/p>\n
     Model Bye Laws were framed pursuant to the decision taken by <\/p>\n
     the   State   Government   to  accept   the   recommendations  of  the <\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                            35<\/span><\/p>\n
     said Shamrao Kadam Committee and the Bye Laws having been <\/p>\n
     framed by incorporating the essence of the recommendations of <\/p>\n
     the said Committee in the Bye Laws.\n<\/p>\n
     20.          It   is   also   required   to   be   seen   that   essentially   the <\/p>\n
     functioning   of   the   Supervision   Societies   is   to   supervise   the <\/p>\n
     Primary Societies who advance loans to the agriculturists  for <\/p>\n
     various purposes.  The said loans are advanced under the aegis <\/p>\n
     of   the   concerned   District   Central   Co-operative   Banks.     The <\/p>\n
     concerned  District Central Co-operative Banks, therefore, have <\/p>\n
     a   stake   in   the   proper   functioning   of   the   said   Supervision <\/p>\n
     Societies   as   the   recovery   of   the   loans   advanced   by   them <\/p>\n
     depends on the Supervision Societies.  The District Central Co-\n<\/p>\n
     operative Banks have, therefore, a stake in the functioning of <\/p>\n
     the Supervision Societies and therefore, in the said context the <\/p>\n
     Shamrao Kadam Committee had observed that it would be in <\/p>\n
     the interest of the District Central Co-operative Banks that an <\/p>\n
     Officer   of   the   said   Bank,   functions   as   a   Chief   Executive <\/p>\n
     Officer\/Secretary of the Supervision Societies.   The impugned <\/p>\n
     Letters\/Orders, therefore, have the effect of interfering with the <\/p>\n
     functioning   of   the   said   Supervision   Societies,   who   otherwise <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                            36<\/span><\/p>\n
     were entitled to choose between the Assistant Registrar or an <\/p>\n
     Officer of the District Central Co-operative Bank to be the Chief <\/p>\n
     Executive Officer or Secretary of the Supervision Societies.   A <\/p>\n
     conscious decision taken, therefore, is sought to be reversed by <\/p>\n
     an executive fiat without there being any material for the same.\n<\/p>\n
                   Another   aspect   to   be   noted   is   that   if   the   District <\/p>\n
     Deputy Registrar is required to play two roles namely the Chief <\/p>\n
     Executive Officer as also discharge his duties as District Deputy <\/p>\n
     Registrar   under   the   said   Act   it   would   result   in   conflict   of <\/p>\n
     interests as the District Deputy Registrar then would have to <\/p>\n
     decide   upon   the   actions   taken   by   him   as   a   Chief   Executive <\/p>\n
     Officer of the Supervision Societies which would not be in the <\/p>\n
     interest of the functioning of the Supervision Societies or his <\/p>\n
     functioning as the District Deputy Registrar.\n<\/p>\n
                   It would also be significant to note that the similar <\/p>\n
     action of the Respondents in the year 1996 was challenged by <\/p>\n
     the   supervision   societies   by   filing   Writ   Petition   Nos.4904   of <\/p>\n
     1996   and   4905   of   1996   which   Writ   Petitions   came   to   be <\/p>\n
     disposed of in view of the Order passed in the year 2003.   By <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                           37<\/span><\/p>\n
     which Order the Respondents had again reverted back to the <\/p>\n
     original   position,   whereby   leaving   the   choice   of   choosing <\/p>\n
     between the Assistant Registrar or an Officer of the DCC Bank <\/p>\n
     to act as Chief Executive Officer to the concerned supervision <\/p>\n
     society.   The said Order passed in the said Writ Petition Nos.\n<\/p>\n
     4904   of   1996   and   4905   of   1996   having   become   final   and <\/p>\n
     binding,   it   was   not   open   for   the   Respondents   to   once   again <\/p>\n
     reverse the decision as contained in the said Circular.   In our <\/p>\n
     view, therefore, the impugned Letters\/Orders are unsustainable <\/p>\n
     on the aforesaid ground also and would therefore have to be <\/p>\n
     quashed and set aside<\/p>\n
     .             Insofar   as   Writ   Petition   No.5463   of   1996   is <\/p>\n
     concerned, it appears that the said Writ Petition remained to be <\/p>\n
     disposed   of   along   with   Writ   Petition   Nos.4904   of   1996   and <\/p>\n
     4905   of   1996,   and   is   therefore   pending.     For   the   aforesaid <\/p>\n
     reasons, the said Writ Petition would also have to be allowed <\/p>\n
     and   is   accordingly   allowed.     Therefore,   for   all   the   aforesaid <\/p>\n
     reasons the impugned Letters\/Orders dated 28th October, 2005 <\/p>\n
     (Ex.O),   19th  October,   2005   (Ex.Q)   and   17th  December,   2005 <\/p>\n
     (Ex.P) are unsustainable and are, therefore, quashed and set <\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:52:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                           38<\/span><\/p>\n
     aside   as   also   the   letters   dtd.   29th  November,   2005   and   9th <\/p>\n
     January, 2006 Exhibit ‘G2’ and ‘G3’ in W. P. No.7490 of 2006.\n<\/p>\n
     21.           Rule   is   accordingly   made   absolute   in   terms   of <\/p>\n
     prayer clause (b) of all the Petitions except W. P. No.7490 of <\/p>\n
     2006 wherein it is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (c) <\/p>\n
     with parties to bear their respective costs.\n<\/p>\n
     (R.M.SAVANT, J.)                                    (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)\n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:52:34 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Pune District Supervision … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 April, 2010 Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar, R. M. Savant 1 Anando IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5463 OF 1996 1. Pune District Supervision Co-operative) Society having its office at ) 9, New Shukrawar Peth, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-228304","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPune District Supervision ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pune District Supervision ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-23T07:21:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"34 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pune District Supervision … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-23T07:21:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":5974,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Pune District Supervision ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-23T07:21:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pune District Supervision … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pune District Supervision ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pune District Supervision ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-23T07:21:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"34 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pune District Supervision … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-23T07:21:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010"},"wordCount":5974,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010","name":"Pune District Supervision ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-23T07:21:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pune-district-supervision-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-22-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pune District Supervision … vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 April, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228304","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=228304"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228304\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228304"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228304"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228304"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}