Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Usha Jadhav and another, were erstwhile chairman and secretary of Shripati Arcade Annexe-II Co-operative Housing Society, Mumbai, from 2008 to 2015. They challenged three orders: (1) order dated 05.11.2014 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, 'D' Ward, Mumbai, (2) order dated 23.05.2017 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Mumbai, and (3) order dated 27.05.2019 passed by the Minister of Co-operation, Marketing and Textile Department (respondent No.1) in revision proceedings. All orders were passed under Section 79(3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, imposing surcharge on the petitioners for alleged misappropriation of society funds. The background involved a dispute over Flat No.C/102 belonging to the Makwana family, with respondent No.4 (Ms. Nandini Makwana) having a dispute with her brother. The petitioners contended that the impugned orders were passed without proper inquiry and that they were not given adequate opportunity to defend. The court examined the concurrent findings of fact by three statutory authorities and held that there was no perversity or lack of evidence to justify interference in writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Co-operative Law - Surcharge Proceedings - Section 79(3) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The petitioners, erstwhile chairman and secretary of a co-operative housing society, challenged orders imposing surcharge for misappropriation of funds. The court held that concurrent findings of fact by three statutory authorities cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 1-13)
B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Judicial Review - Interference with Concurrent Findings - The court reiterated that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will not re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings when lower authorities have concurrently found facts after due consideration of evidence. (Paras 10-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned orders passed under Section 79(3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, imposing surcharge on the petitioners for alleged misappropriation of society funds, suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Surcharge under Section 79(3) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
- 1960
- Scope of judicial review
- Misappropriation of society funds
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (02) 36
Writ Petition No. 10383 of 2019
Ms. Tanaya D. Goswami for the Petitioner, Ms. M.S. Bane, AGP for Respondent Nos. 7 & 8
Minister of Co-operation, Marketing and Textile Department and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging orders under Section 79(3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 imposing surcharge on petitioners for alleged misappropriation of society funds.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of orders dated 27.05.2019, 23.05.2017, and 05.11.2014 passed by respondent authorities.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were aggrieved by the orders imposing surcharge on them for alleged misappropriation of funds of Shripati Arcade Annexe-II Co-operative Housing Society.
Previous Decisions
Order dated 05.11.2014 by Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies; order dated 23.05.2017 by Divisional Joint Registrar, Mumbai; order dated 27.05.2019 by Minister of Co-operation, Marketing and Textile Department in revision.
Issues
Whether the impugned orders under Section 79(3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.
Whether concurrent findings of fact by three statutory authorities can be re-appreciated by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the impugned orders were passed without proper inquiry and without giving adequate opportunity to defend.
Respondents supported the orders, contending that they were based on evidence and concurrent findings of fact.
Ratio Decidendi
Concurrent findings of fact by statutory authorities under Section 79(3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The High Court will not re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings.
Judgment Excerpts
The present petition takes exception to the orders dated 27.05.2019, 23.05.2017 and 05.11.2014 passed by the respondent No.1, respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 statutory authorities.
The impugned order has been passed under the provisions of Section-79(3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
Procedural History
The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies passed order dated 05.11.2014 imposing surcharge. This was upheld by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Mumbai on 23.05.2017. The revision against that order was dismissed by the Minister of Co-operation, Marketing and Textile Department on 27.05.2019. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960: 79(3)
