The question that fell for consideration before this court
in Abhyuday Cooperative Bank's case was, “ Whether the Revisional
authority has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application
under Section 154 of the M.C.S. Act, 1960 filed by the society
registered under that Act, when the applications under Section 101
and 154 of the M.C.S. Act were filed but was converted into a Multi
State cooperative Society during the pendency of the revision
whereupon the applicant was registered under the Multi State
Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and its registration under the M.C.S.
Act, was cancelled”. After considering all the relevant provisions
and various judgments including the judgment of the Division Bench
in “Adarsha Ginning and Pressing Factory Vs. State of Maharashtra”
2008(1) Mh.L.J. 300, the learned Single Judge answered the question
in the affirmative. In paragraph 10 of the said judgment it is
observed that there is nothing in either of the Acts, which expressly
bars the jurisdiction of the court upon conversion of the society as a
Multi State Cooperative Society. Nor is there anything which leads to
that conclusion by necessary intendment. After having examined
the provisions contained in these Acts, we find ourselves in
agreement with the observations made in the judgment. The
provisions of the Act, in fact, indicate that the courts and the
authorities under the M.C.S. Act, continued to have jurisdiction to
decide matters which were validly filed before them prior to the
conversion of the societies registered under the Multi State Act. The
provision contained in Section 84 of the Multi State Act, would apply
to cases which are to be instituted under the said Act. It does not
apply to cases which have already been instituted under the
provisions of the M.C.S. Act. Thus, as has been held in “Abhyuday
Bank's case” the M.C.S. Act. remain unaffected and would not fall
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8175 of 2009
Bhaichand Hirachand Raisoni Sahakari Multi
State Cooperative Credit Society Limited
Jalgaon
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE
R.M. BORDE,JJ..
DATE : 3RD MARCH, 2011.
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of
learned counsel for the parties. Learned AGP waives notice for the
respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2] This writ petition under 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India, impugns the order dated 12.10.2009, passed by the
respondent No.2 – Commissioner of Cooperation and the Registrar of
cooperative Societies, Maharashtra State ( For short, “the
Commissioner”) rejecting the applications made by the petitioner
society, dated 16.7.2009 and 1.8.2009, seeking approval/delegation
of power to the Recovery Officer appointed by them, to recover the
amounts on the basis of Recovery Certificates issued under Section
101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 ( for short,
“the M.C.S. Act”).
3] The petitioner society was initially registered under the
M.C.S. Act. It was then registered under the Multi State Cooperative
Societies Act, 2002,( for short, “the Multi State Act”) vide certificate
of registration dated 31.8.2007, having the States of Maharashtra
and Madhya Pradesh as its area of operation. The petitioner society,
before its registration under the Multi State Act, had obtained
recovery certificates under Section 101 of the M.C.S. Act. In other
words, the certificates under section 101 were issued by the
Assistant Registrar, Cooperative societies against few borrowers prior
to its registration under the Multi State Act. In view thereof, the
petitioner society approached the Commissioner, seeking
approval/delegation of powers to the Recovery Officer appointed by
them, under Section 156 of the M.C.S. Act. Their applications were,
however, rejected vide order dated 12.10.2009, passed by the
Commissioner on the ground that the petitioner society, being a
Multi State society, the office of the Commissioner cannot delegate
the powers under Section 156 of the M.C.S. Act. This order is under
challenge in the instant writ petition.
4] Mr. Hon, learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset
invited our attention to the judgment of this Court in “ Abhyuday
Cooperative Bank Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in 2009(4)
M.L.J. 929 and submitted that since the recovery certificates under
section 101 were issued prior to the petitioner's registration under
the Multi State Act, the Commissioner can exercise his powers under
the provisions of the M.C.S. Act and can appoint a delegate and/or
grant approval to the appointment of Recovery Officer, as
contemplated under Section 156 of the M.C.S. Act. He further
submitted that the authorities under the M.C.S. Act, continued to
have jurisdiction to decide matters which were validly filed before
them prior to the conversion of the societies registered under the
Multi State Act.
5] The question that fell for consideration before this court
in Abhyuday Cooperative Bank's case was, “ Whether the Revisional
authority has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application
under Section 154 of the M.C.S. Act, 1960 filed by the society
registered under that Act, when the applications under Section 101
and 154 of the M.C.S. Act were filed but was converted into a Multi
State cooperative Society during the pendency of the revision
whereupon the applicant was registered under the Multi State
Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and its registration under the M.C.S.
Act, was cancelled”. After considering all the relevant provisions
and various judgments including the judgment of the Division Bench
in “Adarsha Ginning and Pressing Factory Vs. State of Maharashtra”
2008(1) Mh.L.J. 300, the learned Single Judge answered the question
in the affirmative. In paragraph 10 of the said judgment it is
observed that there is nothing in either of the Acts, which expressly
bars the jurisdiction of the court upon conversion of the society as a
Multi State Cooperative Society. Nor is there anything which leads to
that conclusion by necessary intendment. After having examined
the provisions contained in these Acts, we find ourselves in
agreement with the observations made in the judgment. The
provisions of the Act, in fact, indicate that the courts and the
authorities under the M.C.S. Act, continued to have jurisdiction to
decide matters which were validly filed before them prior to the
conversion of the societies registered under the Multi State Act. The
provision contained in Section 84 of the Multi State Act, would apply
to cases which are to be instituted under the said Act. It does not
apply to cases which have already been instituted under the
provisions of the M.C.S. Act. Thus, as has been held in “Abhyuday
Bank's case” the M.C.S. Act. remain unaffected and would not fall
within the ambit of Section 126 of the Multi State Act. It is against
this backdrop, in Abhyuday Bank's case, the order passed by the
Divisional Joint Registrar holding that he had no power to entertain
and decide matters pertaining to any Multi State Society was set
aside and the Revision Applications filed under Section 154 of the
M.C.S. Act were restored to file with direction to decide the Revisions
on merit.
6] In our opinion, the judgment of the Division Bench in
“Adarsha Ginning and Pressing Factory's case” relied upon by learned
AGP, will not have application to the facts of the present case, for the
reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge in para.17 of the
“Abhyuday Bank's case” , which reads thus :-
“The impugned order was based on a judgment of a
Division Bench of this court in the case of “Adarsh
Ginning and pressing Factory Vs. State of Maharashtra,
2008(1) Mh.L.J. 300 = 2007(5) ALL MOR 364. the
judgment is of no relevance in the facts of the present
case. Firstly in that case the bank was earlier registered
under the MCS Act and on 9/12/1999 it was registered
under the Multi-state Cooperative Societies Act, 1984.
The bank instituted the recovery proceedings under
section 101 on 14/8/2002 ( paragraph 20 of the
judgment). The Multi-State Act of 2002 came into force
with effect from 19/8/2002. Under Section 126 of the Act
of 2002 the 1984 Act was repealed. Section 126(2)
provides a saving clause inter alia in respect of any
application made under the 1984 Act. The main issue in
the Writ Petitions filed before the Division Bench was as
to the validity of the circulars issued by the authorities
under the MCS Act. It was contended that the State
authorities/authorities under the MCS Act had no
jurisdiction to issue directions or circulars in respect of
proceedings relating to the Multi-State Act. The question
presently under consideration neither fell for
consideration of the Division Bench nor was dealt with by
the Division Bench even obiter. The society before the
Division Bench was registered as a multi-State
Cooperative society under the 1984 Act on 9/12/1999 i.e.
before it instituted the proceedings under Section 101 of
the MCS Act on 9/10/2002.”
7] We are satisfied that the question which we are
considering in the present writ petition did not fall for consideration
of the Division Bench in “Adarsha Ginning and Pressing Factory's”
case. In the circumstances, the order impugned in the present writ
petition is set aside. The Commissioner is directed to consider the
petitioner's application dated 1/8/2009, seeking approval to the
appointment of Recovery Officer and/or delegate powers under
Section 156 of the MCS Act, to their officer, afresh, as expeditiously
as possible and preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt
of this judgment.
Rule made absolute in above terms with no orders as to costs.
[R.M. BORDE,J] [D.B. BHOSALE,J.]
Print Page
in Abhyuday Cooperative Bank's case was, “ Whether the Revisional
authority has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application
under Section 154 of the M.C.S. Act, 1960 filed by the society
registered under that Act, when the applications under Section 101
and 154 of the M.C.S. Act were filed but was converted into a Multi
State cooperative Society during the pendency of the revision
whereupon the applicant was registered under the Multi State
Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and its registration under the M.C.S.
Act, was cancelled”. After considering all the relevant provisions
and various judgments including the judgment of the Division Bench
in “Adarsha Ginning and Pressing Factory Vs. State of Maharashtra”
2008(1) Mh.L.J. 300, the learned Single Judge answered the question
in the affirmative. In paragraph 10 of the said judgment it is
observed that there is nothing in either of the Acts, which expressly
bars the jurisdiction of the court upon conversion of the society as a
Multi State Cooperative Society. Nor is there anything which leads to
that conclusion by necessary intendment. After having examined
the provisions contained in these Acts, we find ourselves in
agreement with the observations made in the judgment. The
provisions of the Act, in fact, indicate that the courts and the
authorities under the M.C.S. Act, continued to have jurisdiction to
decide matters which were validly filed before them prior to the
conversion of the societies registered under the Multi State Act. The
provision contained in Section 84 of the Multi State Act, would apply
to cases which are to be instituted under the said Act. It does not
apply to cases which have already been instituted under the
provisions of the M.C.S. Act. Thus, as has been held in “Abhyuday
Bank's case” the M.C.S. Act. remain unaffected and would not fall
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8175 of 2009
Bhaichand Hirachand Raisoni Sahakari Multi
State Cooperative Credit Society Limited
Jalgaon
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE
R.M. BORDE,JJ..
DATE : 3RD MARCH, 2011.
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of
learned counsel for the parties. Learned AGP waives notice for the
respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2] This writ petition under 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India, impugns the order dated 12.10.2009, passed by the
respondent No.2 – Commissioner of Cooperation and the Registrar of
cooperative Societies, Maharashtra State ( For short, “the
Commissioner”) rejecting the applications made by the petitioner
society, dated 16.7.2009 and 1.8.2009, seeking approval/delegation
of power to the Recovery Officer appointed by them, to recover the
amounts on the basis of Recovery Certificates issued under Section
101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 ( for short,
“the M.C.S. Act”).
3] The petitioner society was initially registered under the
M.C.S. Act. It was then registered under the Multi State Cooperative
Societies Act, 2002,( for short, “the Multi State Act”) vide certificate
of registration dated 31.8.2007, having the States of Maharashtra
and Madhya Pradesh as its area of operation. The petitioner society,
before its registration under the Multi State Act, had obtained
recovery certificates under Section 101 of the M.C.S. Act. In other
words, the certificates under section 101 were issued by the
Assistant Registrar, Cooperative societies against few borrowers prior
to its registration under the Multi State Act. In view thereof, the
petitioner society approached the Commissioner, seeking
approval/delegation of powers to the Recovery Officer appointed by
them, under Section 156 of the M.C.S. Act. Their applications were,
however, rejected vide order dated 12.10.2009, passed by the
Commissioner on the ground that the petitioner society, being a
Multi State society, the office of the Commissioner cannot delegate
the powers under Section 156 of the M.C.S. Act. This order is under
challenge in the instant writ petition.
4] Mr. Hon, learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset
invited our attention to the judgment of this Court in “ Abhyuday
Cooperative Bank Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in 2009(4)
M.L.J. 929 and submitted that since the recovery certificates under
section 101 were issued prior to the petitioner's registration under
the Multi State Act, the Commissioner can exercise his powers under
the provisions of the M.C.S. Act and can appoint a delegate and/or
grant approval to the appointment of Recovery Officer, as
contemplated under Section 156 of the M.C.S. Act. He further
submitted that the authorities under the M.C.S. Act, continued to
have jurisdiction to decide matters which were validly filed before
them prior to the conversion of the societies registered under the
Multi State Act.
5] The question that fell for consideration before this court
in Abhyuday Cooperative Bank's case was, “ Whether the Revisional
authority has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application
under Section 154 of the M.C.S. Act, 1960 filed by the society
registered under that Act, when the applications under Section 101
and 154 of the M.C.S. Act were filed but was converted into a Multi
State cooperative Society during the pendency of the revision
whereupon the applicant was registered under the Multi State
Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 and its registration under the M.C.S.
Act, was cancelled”. After considering all the relevant provisions
and various judgments including the judgment of the Division Bench
in “Adarsha Ginning and Pressing Factory Vs. State of Maharashtra”
2008(1) Mh.L.J. 300, the learned Single Judge answered the question
in the affirmative. In paragraph 10 of the said judgment it is
observed that there is nothing in either of the Acts, which expressly
bars the jurisdiction of the court upon conversion of the society as a
Multi State Cooperative Society. Nor is there anything which leads to
that conclusion by necessary intendment. After having examined
the provisions contained in these Acts, we find ourselves in
agreement with the observations made in the judgment. The
provisions of the Act, in fact, indicate that the courts and the
authorities under the M.C.S. Act, continued to have jurisdiction to
decide matters which were validly filed before them prior to the
conversion of the societies registered under the Multi State Act. The
provision contained in Section 84 of the Multi State Act, would apply
to cases which are to be instituted under the said Act. It does not
apply to cases which have already been instituted under the
provisions of the M.C.S. Act. Thus, as has been held in “Abhyuday
Bank's case” the M.C.S. Act. remain unaffected and would not fall
within the ambit of Section 126 of the Multi State Act. It is against
this backdrop, in Abhyuday Bank's case, the order passed by the
Divisional Joint Registrar holding that he had no power to entertain
and decide matters pertaining to any Multi State Society was set
aside and the Revision Applications filed under Section 154 of the
M.C.S. Act were restored to file with direction to decide the Revisions
on merit.
6] In our opinion, the judgment of the Division Bench in
“Adarsha Ginning and Pressing Factory's case” relied upon by learned
AGP, will not have application to the facts of the present case, for the
reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge in para.17 of the
“Abhyuday Bank's case” , which reads thus :-
“The impugned order was based on a judgment of a
Division Bench of this court in the case of “Adarsh
Ginning and pressing Factory Vs. State of Maharashtra,
2008(1) Mh.L.J. 300 = 2007(5) ALL MOR 364. the
judgment is of no relevance in the facts of the present
case. Firstly in that case the bank was earlier registered
under the MCS Act and on 9/12/1999 it was registered
under the Multi-state Cooperative Societies Act, 1984.
The bank instituted the recovery proceedings under
section 101 on 14/8/2002 ( paragraph 20 of the
judgment). The Multi-State Act of 2002 came into force
with effect from 19/8/2002. Under Section 126 of the Act
of 2002 the 1984 Act was repealed. Section 126(2)
provides a saving clause inter alia in respect of any
application made under the 1984 Act. The main issue in
the Writ Petitions filed before the Division Bench was as
to the validity of the circulars issued by the authorities
under the MCS Act. It was contended that the State
authorities/authorities under the MCS Act had no
jurisdiction to issue directions or circulars in respect of
proceedings relating to the Multi-State Act. The question
presently under consideration neither fell for
consideration of the Division Bench nor was dealt with by
the Division Bench even obiter. The society before the
Division Bench was registered as a multi-State
Cooperative society under the 1984 Act on 9/12/1999 i.e.
before it instituted the proceedings under Section 101 of
the MCS Act on 9/10/2002.”
7] We are satisfied that the question which we are
considering in the present writ petition did not fall for consideration
of the Division Bench in “Adarsha Ginning and Pressing Factory's”
case. In the circumstances, the order impugned in the present writ
petition is set aside. The Commissioner is directed to consider the
petitioner's application dated 1/8/2009, seeking approval to the
appointment of Recovery Officer and/or delegate powers under
Section 156 of the MCS Act, to their officer, afresh, as expeditiously
as possible and preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt
of this judgment.
Rule made absolute in above terms with no orders as to costs.
[R.M. BORDE,J] [D.B. BHOSALE,J.]
No comments:
Post a Comment