S,41'XYAjlr);[ fi. D!

GI'{li r;i r,,r

\il\ il( ',: l.:ilr;i iiirLilll ,iiiiljll\i
Ot'ilL:i:: l. 'l"r i,ir,.::. liaj:ri:hlrriLrr hr.riliirnl, r:rr.l.:1. ..,1::tblri;,1 .l)oshi :,1r::.1r. i:r,r{. l,lirl.:l>i:i
-:.1
-'
\irri, '::-lr1;.. ;..;r I ,\l;rii: ::ir.:;:iy:1ii,,,1ri/.rllri,t ,..r)ll
Date 151112022
To,
1. Vitthal Kashinath Yeolkar )

Residing at Shivaji Road, Satana. )

Taluka Satana, District: Nashik )

2. Vijay Bhikchand Bhangdiya )

Age: Adult years, Occ: Business )

Residing at Gopal Nagar, Shivaji Road)

Satana, Taluka Satana, Dist: Nashik )

3. Tlic Satana Merchants Co-op. Bank )

Ltd. Satana. Dist: Nashil<.

REf: -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURtr AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATB JURISDICTION
crvrl wRrT ptrTrTioN [sTAMp] No. 378 OF 2022
I
DISTRICT: NASHIK.
Jagdish Vasant Mundaware and Ors . . . Petitioner
Versus
District Deputy Registrar Nashik, Apd ors. ... Respondents
Sir,
Be pleased to take notice that the captioned matter will
come up for hearing before Hon'ble Justice R. V. Ghuge J on
19 / 01 / 2022 at I 0:30a.m.
You n.ray remain present in tlie court fioln l0:30a.rn onwards on

19 l01 /2A22 if 1rc.u c6 dgs'19.

Copy of r.r,rit petition with exhibits is attached helewith.

.n
Lf
A t
,i) t' ---1
I

Satyajeet P. Diqhe. z\dvocati: fbr Petitioncr

 .1)
15\f IN TIIE.}IIGH COIIRT
OF
9'
r-..1' crvrl AppEr*fm#ril#u\r,Ar
r" CI\4IL wruT PETITIoIT{
No; I
aF zoz.
Jagdish Vasant
DISTRICT: NaSnrr<
Mundaware & Ors.
Petitioners
Versus
District Deputy
Registrar.
Lo-operative Societies,
ILshik & Ors. Respondents
INDEX
PARTTC_MRE

Memo oipbtitiio

Copy of the inqriiry

report dated 31/12/2018

;;til.i::ffi1.,.,1fi
[?##;]i,^,:ffii.:

!i,oi,;orrr*7,€pporrioxment -order dated

*?i?i ra bi'r'i"t
'?,,*
f*#*,":*li.1lti.1fl :"#:1,:X1:?
Nashik u/s ZCaf,rclii"i G5- 68
frffi^"u,r,r*

8:mj,:l** r dated, 05 / t 1
/20 ! 8 r:/ s. 7 7 A
 S:y .ltn: order dared 246/03/2019 passed
fl ,,h3ffi i:11, j:*J;5;*r;-N',.'htk"; )lt-'tn
Exhibit,G;
S:rJ dated 26/03/2019 passed
lI fr:"1,1"_":der
Ld: llivisional foint Registrar
i, ipp",r i". l'>'L -1 {1
Co_
Nastuk
ifi.3;i;;,;**ties,

9"0, .oj rhe norices d,ated t7/09/2020 n

A-ppealRevision
15-S_
No. RVA_2020 fp.X.
ZiqS ) r?t-l
oltle-order dated 23/12/2021
::pJ passed

glH'r?,VHF l?zr -
:," m'gll*xg:
i

Exhibit,.I,
dated 22t04/2020 passed
oy the "j,u:."lder
S:1,, Ld.-Divisional Joint Registrar, q_al
tn Appeal No. 123 of2018. Nashd
-
Exhibit'K,H
the proceeding relating to
-9:1, :, of Kalyapan y"eola.
resignation ,
the

Exbibit,L-
the appointment order
::5rl,:: of co_opted

$:'J ;lj::rli ]::*Shakari

I::1" :,^," Ladshakhiva
Sanstha, Satana.
,_\g
Last page Nos.. 2-{.9
 nA
tr{ TIIE HIGH-COURT OF JUDICATT]RE AT MTJMBAI

CfV, tr. APPELLATE JURISDICTION

C[\,TL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2O2I

Jagdish Vasant Mundaware & Ors. " Petitioners

Versus
District Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Nashili & Ors. Respondents

SYNOPSIS
f. Challenge in Brief:-
The Petitioners are challenging the order daled, 23/12t202t
passed by the Hon'ble Minister of Co-operation,
MantraJaya,
Mumbai ia Appeal No. A?p-2020lp.K.24t/lS/S r:/s. 152 of
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 whereby
the Ld.
Minister had set aside the order passed by tle Divisional
Joint
Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Nashik in Appeal
No. I 17
of 2018 dated 26/03/201.9 ard has furrher upheld rle order
dated 05/11/2018 passed by the Ld. D.D.R. Nashik
thereby
appointing Administrator to the Respondent
No. 5 Society u/s.
77A of the Act.

[I. List of Dates

1. B112/2018:- Inquiry repprt u/s. 83 was submitted
by the
inquiry officer with,respect to the affairs of the Society.
In the said inquiry report Inquiry Officer had suggested
to initiate inquiry u/s. gg against.the Director. Fu(her,
 b
inquiry fees of Rs. 25,000/- was fixed uPon the
Respondent No. 5 SocietY.

2010412018t The Ld' DDR Nashik passed order

direoting the ResPondent No' 5 SocietY to PaY the

inquiry fees of Rs' 25,0004'

,. 01/11/2018:- The.Ld' DDR N+$ft h modification of

earlier order dated 2010412018 passed fresh order r:/s'

85(3) and fixed apportionment of inquiry fees of Rs'
I5,OOOI- paid by the Respondent No. 5 Society and
directed the Petitioner Nos' i0 to 13 along with earlier
Directors to pay a sum ofRs. 2083.33 each'

4. 03/lll2Ol8; The Ld. DDR Nashik passed order r:/s'

73CA(lxiii) thereby disqualifring the Petitioner Nos' 10

to 13 for non payment of Rs' 2083'33 towards

apportionment amount.

5 O5/11/2018i Since the Ld. DDR Nashik disqualified the

Fetitioner Nos. 10 to 13 and has further stated that three
other members of goveming bodies had tendered
resignations, it was held that governing body do not have
any sufficient Coram and hence appointed Administrator
ds.77A.
 c
6. 26/03/2019:-Revision Application Np. 200 of2018 fited
by the Petitioner Nos. 10 to 13 .against disqualification
order dated A3/t1/2018 was allowed and disqualification
was set aside by Ld. Divisional Joint Registrar.

7. 26/0312019:- Further, the order dated 05llll2l1g

appointing Administrator u/s. 77A was also set aside by
the Ld. Divisional Joint Registrar in Appeal No. l 17 of
2018 frled by Petitioners

o. 23/l2/2O2l iRespondent No. 3 preferred Appeal r:/s. 152

before the Ld. Mnister Co-operative Society against
order dated 2610312019 in Appeal No. 117 of 201'g and
the Ld. Mjnister was pleased to set aside the said order

in Appeal no. ll7/20l8 aad revived

dated 2613119
original order dated OS/11/Z0lg u/s. 77A for
appoinfi nent of Administator.

9. Hence, the present petition.

uI. PoINTS To BE URGED:-

As stated in the memo of petition.
rV. ACTToBEREFERRED.
1. Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960

2. Constitution oflndial 1950

BOMBAY
DATED ADVOCATEF TI{E PETITIONERS
Q.1.2-i
 I

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI

CIVIL APPELLATE JUR]SDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2O2I

DISTR]CT: NASHIK
zo
{
:g
In the nraltcl of Anicle 227 of
r
tlre Constitution oflndi4 1950;

o
t
P
r In tl:e nratler of older dated
z
:l
23/1212021 passed by the
,
|- Hon'ble Minister of Co-

z' operation, Mantralaya.

t3 TUroigfrt t"r. i.t,r.:1,,I,'\

I/ \
ae".,..AriStr+ M,-ulbai in Appeal No. APP-
F HY::]H }
\ "':=':iiir** ,i
'r's"
zo ?*-\etrI*r1J1cfiozf
,
-(%;i-;;;iSZ
2 \r - ". E,rtr . _1".
r
r

o ,; .ffi'

tuffi
\@

2020;1P.K.248 l_15 - S, u/s. 1 52

of the Maharashtra Co-

operative Societies Act, 1960;

1. jagdish Vasant Mundawar e )

Age: 43 years, Occ: Business )

Jaywant Bhalchandra Yeola )

Age:41 years. Occ: Business )

Both residing ai Satpuri Road. )

llatana. Taluka Satana, Dist: Nashik )

,l
Pial:aslr Her::chandra Songra )
,

Age: 62 years. Occ: Business )

Residing at Tilak Road, Satana, )

Taluka Satana, District: Nashik )

 0 t tnu z.otz

4. Pravin Suresh Bagad

Age:46years, Occ:Business

Residing it Tilak Road, Satana,

Taluka Satana, District: Nashik

5. Dilip Shrikant Yeola

Age:6J years, Occ: Business

Residing at Tilak Road, Salana,

Taluka Satana, District: Nas.hik

6. Dilip Dattatraya Chavan

Age: 63 years, Occ: Business

'Residing at.T.D.A. Roacl, Satana,

Taluka Satana, Distlict: Nashik

7. Sharad N{adhukar Sonawane

Age: 48 years, Occ: Business

Residing at Taharabad Road. Salana,

Talulta Satana, District: Nashik

8. Rupali Prakash kothar.vade

Aee: 38 vears.' Occ: Business

I

. Residing at Malegaon Road, Satana

Taluka Satana, District: Nashik

 .::ffi,
_'.t
'lrnlsbE

Kalpana Rajenda Yeola ) iEt

I
i Rqi.N
Dirt
\ rtlEv,
Age: 52 years, Occ: Business ) aft\:r+rr'

Residing at.Mitra Nagar, Satana, )

K}H
Taluka Satana, District: Nashik )

Rajendra Balkrushna Alai )

Age: 59 years, Occ: Business )

Residing at Malegaon Road, Satana, )

'ialuka Satana, District: Nashik )

Kailas Hari Yeola )

Age:48 years, Occ: BusineSs )

I-lesiding at Nampur Road, Satana, )

Taluka Satana. Distlict: Nashik )

Pankaj Subhas Tatar )

Age: 39 yeals- Occ: Business )

Residing at Taharabad Road, Satana, )

l-aluka Sala)ta. Districr: Nashik , )

\iashwarrt N imba Antlutkar )

Age: 52 years. Occ: Business )

Residing at Tilak B.oad, Satana. )

Talul<a Satana. Disrricr: Nashik ) Petitioners

 o 3 JAN'?02?

Versrs

l. District Deputy Registrar, )

Co-operative Societies, Nashik )

Taluka and Dish'ict: Nashik )

2. AssistantRegistrar,Co-operative )

Societies, Nandgaon, Taluka )

Nindgaon, Dist'ict: Nashik )

.}. Vitthal Kashinath Yeolkar )

Age: Adrilt years, Occ: Business )

Residing at Shivaji Road, Satana. )

Taluka Satana, District: Nashik )

4. Vijay Bhikchand Bhangdiya )

Age: Adult years, Occ: Business )

Residing at Copal Nagar, Shivaji Road)

Satana, Taluka Satana, Dist: Nashik )

5. The Satana Melchanrs Co-op. Banli )

Ltd. Satana,. Dist: rr-ashik. )

6. Stale of Ir4aharzshrra' )...Respondents

\

HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

 6

MAST RESPECTFULLY SHOWffi

i: Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Judgmenl and

order dated 23/1212021passed by the Hon,bte Minister

of Co-operation, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Appeal No.

APP-2020/?.K.248 / 15-S, u,/s. i52 of the Maharashtra

Co-operative Societies Act, I960, petitjoners have

nrcfered the present Writ Petition under Article 227 of

'ihe Constitution of India, 1950.

Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as

i'.:llows:

'ii:e Respondent No.5 The Satana Ivlerchant Co-

riieralive Bank Linrited. Satana [Hereinafrer ieferred to

r,i 'societ_v'] is a Society legistered under the Co-

operalive Societies Act and as sr-rch is engaged in ihe

business in the nature of Banking,Business fcr_which the

il,rciety aJso has necessary p"r,nissio,.', fronr the Reserve

Sank of India. The Petitioners herein are the elected

directors of the governing body/Managing Cbtnmittee

and as such ar-e presently in charge of this

 , o3tar,t.2aL?
.T
.T
Adrninistration and functioning of the Society. The

Resporrdents no. 3 & 4 are the Members of Socier-y who

had soughi appointment of recejver to take over the

adrnrnisti'ation of the Society u/s. 77 of the Maharashtra .

Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 before tle Ld. District

Deputy Registrar of Co-opera,tive Societies, Nashik.. The

other Respondents are Authorities coltstituted under the

Act who lcgulate the functioiring of Co-<iperative

Societies.

1. In the year 1018. the Lc]. Dist,.ict Deputy Registrar of

Co-operarive Societi,526 directed an inquiry u/s. g3 of

the Co-oper,ative Societies Act with respect to the affairs

of the ResponrJerrt No. 5 Sociery. According)y, the

Inquiry Office Shri. Sanjay Gire rvas appointed to

iollduct rhe said inquiry. The said inquiry officer .

conducted inquirl,regarclirrg cerlain affairs of the Societ_v

and accorclingll. sub:iritted his inquiry report dated

3l103/201E. In the saiC repoff it \\ias directcd to iniriare

proceedine u,Is. 68 of rhp Acr aga;nst the then directors

including Peririo:rers no. l0-li,ll and 13 and ihe Inguiry

 !e)
D
Officer also requested for cost/fees ofRs. 25,000/- from

Respondent No. 5 Society u/s. 85 of the Act towards

charges for.conducting the said inquiry. Hereto annexed

and marked as Exhibit'A' is a copy of the inquiry report

dated 3l /l2l2}l8.

it is stated that in the proceedings initiated ur/s. 88 of the

Act pursuant to the aforesaid report, the then directors

including Petitio""rs no. l0,l l, 12 and 13 are exonerated

vide order dated 1210212021 of the Inquiry officer. The

Petitioners crave leave to submit and rely on same if

lequired.

{r. lr view of the said request of the Inquiry Officer for

recovery of cost of inquiry of Rs. 25,000/-. the Ld.

District Deputy Registrar vide order dated 20/04/2018

drected the Respondent No. 5, Sqciety to deposir an

$:r-.tclrnt of cost of inquiry Rs. ?5,0001 with the NDCC

Bank Limited Nashik. Accordingly, the Respondent No.

5 Society deposited Rs. 25,Q00/- in tlie respective

acccunt on 19/06/2018 and communicated the same to

 0 3 JAN 2022 q
t'::
-r,o;*
a the Ld. DDR Nashik by letter date d 06109/2018. The said

.+;/ fact js not disputed by anvone and the same is matter of

record. Hereto annexed and maiked as Exhibit .8, is a

copy of the order dated ZOlO4l2OlB passed by rhe Ld.

District Deputy Registrar, Nashik.

7. Thereafter, the Id. DDR Nashik issued notice dated

I 0/08/2018 u/s. 85(3) ofthe Act thereby cailing upon the

rhen directors incJuding Peritioner No. l0,l l,l2 and l3

to sliow cause as tQ why the aforesaid an:ounl of Rs.

25,000/- should ncit be recovered fion.l rhe the)n.

Thereafter, the Ld. DDR by way of review passed order

dated 01/1 1/2018 u./s. 85(l) ofthe Acr and thereby fixed

liabiliry of Rs. 2083.33 on each of the then djrectors

including Petitioner No. 10, ll, t2 and I3 so as to

recover the amount of Rs. 25,0001 paid by the

Respondent No. 5 Society by rnodifing earlier order

clated 20/04/18. Hereto annexed and mar.lted as Elhitrit

'C' is a copy of.the orde! dated 01/l l/2018-passed by the

Ltl. Dislrict Deputy'Registrar u/s. 85(1) of the Acr.

 lu
8. Thereafter, the Ld. District Deputy Registrar in utter

haste and wiihout giving opportunity of hearing to the

Petitioner No. 10, 11, 12 and 13 who are part of presenr

board of directors, passed ordel iminediately on

03/1112018 u/s. 73 C A (lxiii) of the Act thereby

disqualifiing the Petitioners fronr the post of Board of

Director / Managing Committee for non-payrrent of Rs.

Rs. 2083.33 and further declared the post as vacant.

Hereto annered and marked as Exhibit'D, is a copy of

the order daled 03/11i2018 passed by the Ld. District

Deputy Registiar, Nashik uA 73CA(l Xiii) of rhe Acr.

9. After passing the aforesaid trvo orders on 01/ll/2018

and 03/l 1i2018, the Ld. DDR Nashik inllediately on

05/l li20l8 passed order uis. 77A of the Act theieb,v

holding rhat since vide order dared 03i I1l2018 lcrur

ri,rernbers of the boarcl of direcrors )re disqualified and

three others members of the Board of Ditectors have

resigned, the govelning bod$ ha! lost its Coram and .H

thus has given lise to a sjtuation for appointn'rent c,f

Administrator and accorciingJy the Ld. DDR Nashili

 0 3 JAN ?oz? [t
dissolved the governing body and appointed

adnrinistrator to take charge of the Society vide order

dated 05/1112018. Hereto amexed and marked as

Exhibit'E'is a copy ofthe order dated 05/11/2018.

10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 05111/2018

Petitioners herein prefen'ed Appeal u/s. 152 of the Act

. . bearing Appeal No. I I7 of 201 8 before the Divisional

Joint Registrar Co-operative Societieb, Nashik.

11. Simultaneously, Pctitioner Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13 lieing

. aggrieved a:rd dissatisfied by the disqualification order

dated 03/11/2018, preferred Revision Application No.

'200 of 2018 before the Ld. Divisional Joint Regisrrar

Co-operative Societies, Nashik Division, Nashik. By

order dated 26103/2019 the said Revision Application

was allowed and the order disqualifling Petitionet. Nos.

10, 11, 12 and 13 was quashed and set aside. Herero

annexed and marked as Exhibit .F, is a coov of the

t-
order dared 24/03/2}lg passed. by the Divisional Joint
 l<r
I /-
Registrar, Nashik ln Revision Application No. 200 of
2078.

12. Since the aforesaid Revision Application No. 200 of

:

2018 had questioned interrelated to the Appeal No. 117

of 201 8. the Ld. Divisional Joint Registrar Nashik with

consent of all the parties had also heard thd Appeal No.

I 1 7 of 201 8 along with the abovementioned Revision

Application No. 200 of20l8. Further since the Revlsion

Application No. 200 of 2018 was allowed and

disqualitication order dated l3it 1/2018 was quashed and

set aside by the Ld. Divisional Registrar, Automatically

the necessar--v nun:ber of nrenrbers in the governing body

to fulfill tlre Coram was complete and therefore order

clated 05,'lIilO!8 passed bv the Ld. DDR Nashik u/s.

77A of the Act 'Nas quashe<I and set aside by allorving

Appeal No. I 17 of 2018. H"."to dnn.L"a and markecl as

Exlribii 'G' is a qopy of the oider d^ted 26103/2019

passed by the Lcl. Divisional Joint Registrar Co-

operative Societies, Nashik in.Appeal No. I 17 of2018.
 0 3 JAN 2022 ra)
t>
13. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by. the order dated

26/0312019 passed by the Ld. Divisional Joint Registrar,

Nashik in Appeal No. 1I7 of20lg, Respondent No. 3

Vitthal Yeolkar preferred Revision u/s. 154 of Co-

operative Societies Act before tJre Ld. Minister Co-

operative Societies Mumbai. The petitioners initially

receiyed notice dated 17/09/2}lg from the Office of Ld.

Co-opel ation Minister, Mantralaya, Mumbai accorcling

to which hearing of the Revisjon Application was fixed

on 22109/2020. Hereto ainexed and nrarked as Exhibit

'H' is a copy of the notices dated l.l /09/2020 in Revisio:r

Application No. RVA-2020 lp.K, 248 / I 5-S.

14. The Petitioners remained present before the Ld. Minister

on 22/09/2020 and requested for acljournnrent as due to

the existing pandenric situation they weie unable. to

appoint Advocate and submit their reply. The

.said
adjoulnment application were taken on rccord by the Ld.

Minister, lrowever, ackrlowledgment was not given to tlte

Petitioners.
 lr
t4
'l
15. Theleafter, abruptly ald to the uttbr shock and surprise

of the Petitionerg, the Ld. Minister finally passed the

order dated 23l12l2)lg in Revision APP-2020 /?.K' 248

/ l5-S and in the said order, the Ld. Minister.has quashed

and set aside order dated 26/0312019 passed by the I-d.

Divisional Joint Registrar Nashik in Appeal No. 1i7 of

2018 and has upheld the order dated 05/l l/2p18 passed

by the Ld. DDR Nashik t/s. 77 A of the Act. Hereto

anrrexed and marked as Exhj.bi! '-I'. is a copy of the order

dxed 23'11212021 passed by the Ld. ]vlinister Co-

operative Society, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Revision No.

APP-2020/P.K.248 i I 5-S.

tb. Being aggrieved anel dissatisfied.by the aforesaid order

rhe Petitioners have filed the preseltt Petition on the

fol lowing.arr:ongst other grounds.

,' l

GROUNDs

The in:pugled order is passed in proceeding

numbered as APP-2020P.K.248 / l5-S hou.'ever

the Petitioner had received notice dated 17l}gtlg

 o 3 uru zozz
t5
from the office of Ld. Minister wherein the case

number is mentioned as RVA-2020/P.K .248./ 15-

S. Thus there is contradiction in impugned order

and notice received from the Ld. Minister. This

itself suggests that the order is passed in utter

haste and that to after one year of closihg the case

on 2219/2020. The Ld. Minister has not clarified

tlrat scope of proceedings and whether he has

entertained the case u/s. 154 or sec. I 52 ofthe Act.

It is also not clear wltether the case was Revision

or Appeal as the notice dated l7/9119 suggetas tlre

case is of Revision and rhe impugned order states

it to be anAppeal.

b. There is complete erroL and illegalify on the pafi

of the Ld. Minister as the Revision was posted for

hearing of applicatiorr ol deJay condonation,

however,'the Ld. Minisier on the same day has

,l
condoned the delay and firrrher heard the Appeal I

Revision on nrerits without affording opportunity

 I6

ln
l6
of hearing to the Petitioners. The said manner of

conducting the enlire proceeding itself suggests

oblique nrotive and illegalities sufficient enough to

quash the impugned order dated 23/12/2021,

fassed by the Ld. Minister.

It is pertinent to note that hearing was purportedly

closed on 22/0912020 for delay condonation and

the inrpugned orger is passed one year after that on

23112121. The long time gap between the hearing

and tlie order also suggest that the hearing was

nrere formality and the order is passed after one

year without application of mind on facts of the

case.

The order dated 23i1,2/2019 passed by the Ld.

I
'
Minister does not suggest applicatiou of mind on

ilre aforesaid proceeding. Thus, fronr perusal of

the order passed by the Ld. Minister it is not

clarified nor there is appropriate reasoning to

suggest as to rvhich order was entefiained and

 0 3 Lnn ?022 l+
interfered with by the Ld. Minister. However, in

the operative pbrti,on of the impugned ortler, the

Ld. Minist6r has quashed and set aside the order

dated 26/O3/2019 passed by the I.d. Divisional

Jo.int Regislrar in Appeal No. 117 of 20l8andhas

further upheld the order dated 05/1 1/201.8 passed

by lhe Ld. DD\ Nashik u/s. 77A thereby

appointing administrator to take charge of the

Society..Thus, from the operative order it is clear

that Minister has only upheld the order of Ld.

DDR Nashik appointing administrator, however,

the Ld. Minister has not set aside the order passed

by the;Ld. Divisional Joint Registrar whereby

Petitioner's no. 10, 11, l2 and 13 disqualification

was set aside.

It is stated that vide order dated 24103/2019 passed

by the Ld. Divisional Joint Registrar, Nashik, the

disqualificationr order dated 03t11/2018 passed by

the Ld. DbR Nashik was quashed and set aside.

The said order has attained finality and has not

 t3
lo
lo
4ffi*, aside by any Authority, Court or Forum.

Once the disqualification order is set aside and has

attained finality, it was complete .error on part of

'
the Ld. Minister to rely upon the disqualification

order and hold that because of the said

disqualification order the number of Ditectors is

falling short so as to complete the Coram of the

governing body. Once the disqualification order is

set aside the very sanre disqualification ord'er

cannot be made foundations of passing order u/s

77A of the Act so as to conclude that because of

this disqualificirtion tlie governing body falls short

of its Coram.

f. It is pertinenr ro note thar the disqualification orcler

dated l3l1 l/2018 was passed by rhe Ld. DDR

Nashik because Petirionerb trJa ia;iea to pay Rs.

2083.88 each as ordered by the Ld. DDR in its

earlier order dated Oli ll/?018 so as towards the

apportiomnent of inquiry cost of Rs. 25,000/- pairi

by the Societ1,. Horvever. it is stated that the vel.v

 la
rl
0 B .lll,t ZO22
order dated 01111/2018 fixing apportibnment of

Rs. 2033.83 on each of Petfioner no. 10, 11, 12

and 13 towards inquiry fees of Rs. 25,000/- is

itself quashed and set aside by the Divisiodl Joint

Registrar vide order dated 22/04/2020 in Appeal

No. 123 of 2018. Sincb the original order of

appodionment of cost itself is now quashed and

set aside, the disqualification order

. .dated

03/11/201 I passed by the Ld. DDR for non- '

.payment of apporriohment amount is rendered

nullity. Therefore! even otherwise the said

disqualification order dated 03/11/2018 which is

rendered null and void cainot be a foundation of

an order uls 77A to dissolve the governing body

and appoint administrator thereto. Hereto annexed

and mat'ked as Exhibit 'J, is a copy of the order

dated 22104i2020 passed by rhe Ld. Divisional
Joint Registrar, Nashik iii Appeal No. 123 of 201,8.
t-
The aforesaid order dated 22/0412020 passed by

the Ld. Divisjonal Joint Regiltrar, Nashik in

 Appeal No. 123 of2018 has attained finality and

has not been challenged in court of law. In view of

the same all the consequential order of

disqualification dated 03/11/18 and order uls.77A

dated 05/1trl18 becomes inoperative and nullity.

h. While upholding the order of dissolving the

governing body r:/s. 77A, the Ld. Minister have

also taken into account that three ofthe members

have resigned, however, it is pe(inent to note tlrat

resi-e.nation of one of the elected Member Snrt.

Kalpana Yeola is not accepted and there is no

P,esolution to that effect. On the contrary the said

Member Kalpana Yeola has infolnred the Soclety

that she was coerced to give the r-r-signation Iefler

direc'tly to the office of DDR Nashik, however,

\
she had no intention to lesign. ]lereto annexed and

marked as Exhibit 'K'. is a copy . of the

proceeding relating to the resignation of Kalyapari

Yeola. Since the Ld. Minister had taken into

consideration tbe said resignation as well to hold

 .-l
L-?l
ll
0 3 .rnw 7022

that the governing body fall short of necessary

Coram, the said acceptance of resignation is

incorrectly deatrt by the Ld. Minister as the said

elected member Kalpana Yeola is still continuing

in the governing body.

1. It is also pertinent to note that cost of Rs. 25,000/'

towards inquiry under Section 83 was fixed by the

inquiry officer vide its report.dated' 31/1212018

'and the said amount cfRs. 25,0001'is already paid

to the office of-DDR Nashik. So also the very

inquiry report dated 3111212018 is challenged in a

separate proceeding before the I.d. Divisioi:al

Joint Registrar in Revision Application No. 142 of

2018. Thus, the very inquiry report fixirig cost of

Rs. 25,000/- is a subject nratter of challenge before

he Ld. Divisional Registrar and therefore Hon'ble

Minister ought not to have in utter hasle rlissolved

the Petitioners go\erning body.

 (') .")
Zr Z-

J. Thus, at present the goveming body has 13

_

members and thus the said number is srrfficient to

complete the Coiam as the total strengh of elected

body is of 17. The necessary Coram should be of9

members and the sarre is fulfilled by the

Petitioners. In addition there are two other cb-

opted director.s as well by which the total number

in Coram conles to 15. The appointment order of

co-optecl ,lirectors is annsxed at ExhibiGl..

Further from the reasoning ofthe impugned order

passed by the Ld. Minister it is apparent that I.d.

Minister has relied on exttaneous m4terial rnore

particularly rhe order with respect to another

society i.e Ladshakhiya Wani Sanraj Nagari

Shaltari Sanstha, Salana is also taken into

considelation. The said oidert u,ith respect to

another sociery is completely irelevant so as to

decide the aspect of appointment of administrator

with the respect to present Resp. No.5 society-.

Hereto annexed and'marked as Exhibit-M is the

 n-b
o 3 .laru loz2
copy of record with respect to Ladsliakhiya Wani

Samaj Nagari Shakari. Sanstha, Satana. The said

reasdning itself suggests that the order pas.sed by

the Ld. Minster suffers from complete non-

. application of mind and error that goes to the root

ofthe matter.

l. The Ld. Minister has acted beyond the scope of

sec.7'l A ofthe Act and has failed to appreciate the

purpose and obj ect ofthe said provision uJs.77A.

IN: Even otherwise the order passed by the Ld.

Minister suffers from gross error and in'egularities

so also it suffer from non-appiication of nT ind as

bare perusal of the impugr:ed order dated

2311).12021 reflect that uo sufficienl reason is

passed by the Ld. Midister before ariving at a

co::clusiorr.. '

The Ld. Ministbr has failed to appreciate the fact

thar all rhe order dared 0l/lll18, 03/11/18 and

05/l l/l 8 passed by the Ld. DDR Nashik were

 24 @
passed in quick succession one aJter another (i
without affordin! opportunity of hearing to the

Petitioners. The manner in which the said orders

were passed itself suggests malafide intention of

the authorities below. The said order in

"r"n
o*Jrerwise ought not to have been made foundation

ofthe final order passed by the Ld. Minister.

o. The Ld. Minister had no1 perused the entire record

and had turned blind eyes towards order passed by

the Ld. Divisional Registrar, u,herein the

disqualification order ofthe petitioners is quashed

and set aside-

p. Tlre entire manners in rvhich the proceedings are

held and concluded by rhe Ld. Ministei shows

ufier haste and nralafide iirrentiop so as to Supporr

the Opponents as record itself indicates rhat no

opportunity of hearing rvere afforded to the

Petitioners.
 2_5
0 3 JAN 2022

q. The Petitioners also submits that the .impugned

order dated 2311212021 is still not communicatcd

to the Petitioners or to the Society; however, the

Respondenls have published the news articles

dated 0110112022 regarding the impugned order

and also on 01/0112022 the Respondent no. 3 and

4 had sub:aitted the copy of order to inwald

department of Resp. No.5 Society.

r. The Petitioners apprehend that the impugned order

dated 23112/2021will be implemented anC hence

imrnediately Pelitioners have approached this

Hon'ble High Court.

17. The Petitioners have no alternate remedy but to approach

this Hon'ble High Court in. elda._{6-g*d1dr-dl:€s

+C€ft"cs€d. ALI

?. hht''t.
i 8. The Petitioners crave Ieave to anteDd and add thEir!&er
,
eelplplrees-(E7 @ar@ (Eid6@nddot <ill: aaoe 48e <:ar?]ercis

nhce68a.r),.
 2-6
L9. The Petitioners state that they have not filed any other

petition in this Hon'ble High Ccurt or the Hon'ble

Supreme Court for similar relief s.

20. The Petirioners, therefore, pray that :-

(a) By appropriate wiit / order or direction, this

Hon'ble Couft be pleased to quash and set aside

the order dated 23112/2021 passed by the Hon'ble

Minister of Co-operation, Maniralaya, Mumbai in

Appeal No. APP-2020/P.K.248 / 15-S u/s. 152 of

the Ir4aharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960;

(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the

present Petition, the execution, inplementation

and operation of the order dated 23/l2l212l

passecl bi, the I{on'ble N,[inister of Co-operation,

lvlantralaya, Mun-rbai iir Appeal No. App-

2020iP.K.248 / 15-S u/s. 152 of the Maharashrra

Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 may kindly be

. stayed.
 G). Interim / ad-interim relief in terms ofprayer clause

(b) al'ove.

(d) Such other and further relibf s as this Hon'ble

Court may deem fit and proper be granted in favor

ofthe Petitioner

Place :

Date :.

SATYAJEET P. DIGHE
 VERIFICATION

Kailas Hari Yeola, Age: 48 years, residing at Narnpur

.I,
Road, Satana, Taluka Satana, District: Nashik, the Petitioner

No. 11 for himself- and on behalf of other Petitioners

hereinabove do lrereby state on solemn affirmation that

rvhatever stated in folegoing paragraphs Nos. t to 19 is true

and corect to my own knowledge and belief and the contents

Jast para No. 20 are m1, humble prayers.

Solemnly affinned at ) z-r1

\t=+as r
Dated 3'd day of Jantaty,2022 ) L)eDonent

Kc.,lcg rr yeclo*
Before nre

IDENTIFJED BY ME

Solemnly affirmcd by Shri

lo- docurnr.tt
vho has sigmd h
& RFgisterod
my plescnrc i. .." jro is identifid by

of whom i persttiatty known.

,
l; r , o"h 3 ffu zozz
ll

j
'

,M"o." for the Petitioners

t'aotror"*T P. D'GHE
BEF
_t
_