Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Telecom Engineering Staff Credit Cooperative Society, Akola, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 22.11.1996 passed by the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Nagpur. The appellate court had set aside the award dated 10.08.1993 passed by the District Deputy Registrar (respondent No.2) and remitted the matter back for fresh enquiry by a different officer. The background of the case involves an enquiry ordered against nine delinquents, including respondent No.1 S.S. Deshpande, who was the Secretary of the society during the period 01.07.1979 to 30.06.1983. The enquiry was initiated based on an audit note alleging misappropriation of funds. The Authorised Officer (respondent No.3) conducted the enquiry, examined 57 witnesses, and passed an award holding respondent No.1 personally liable. During the pendency of the enquiry, one of the delinquents, Shri Gurav, expired on 05.06.1993. Respondent No.1 filed an application to bring the legal heirs of Shri Gurav on record, but the petitioner society opposed it, contending that since the death occurred after the proceedings were closed for final orders, Order XXII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) would apply and substitution was not necessary. The Authorised Officer rejected the application and proceeded to pass the award. The appellate court set aside the award, holding that the enquiry officer should have considered the application for substitution and that the enquiry was vitiated. The High Court, in its judgment, examined the scope of the writ petition and held that the impugned order was merely a remand order directing a fresh enquiry, which did not finally determine the rights of the parties. The court observed that the appellate authority had exercised its power under Section 97 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, and the remand was justified. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the challenge.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Law - Remand by Appellate Authority - Section 97 Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - The appellate court set aside the award of the District Deputy Registrar and remitted the matter for fresh inquiry by a different officer, holding that the enquiry officer had failed to consider the application for substitution of legal heirs of a deceased delinquent and that the enquiry was vitiated. The High Court held that the remand order was interlocutory and did not finally determine rights, and the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 1-5) B) Civil Procedure - Substitution of Legal Heirs - Order XXII Rule 6 CPC - The enquiry officer rejected the application for substitution of heirs of a deceased delinquent on the ground that death occurred after proceedings were closed for final orders. The appellate court held that the enquiry officer should have considered the application and that the provision of Order XXII Rule 6 CPC would apply. The High Court did not interfere with this finding. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court was justified in setting aside the enquiry officer's award and remitting the matter for fresh inquiry, and whether the writ petition against such remand order is maintainable.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the impugned order was merely a remand order directing a fresh enquiry and did not finally determine the rights of the parties. The court found no merit in the challenge and upheld the appellate authority's decision.
Law Points
- Remand power of appellate authority
- Substitution of legal heirs after close of proceedings
- Order XXII Rule 6 CPC applicability to cooperative enquiries
- Scope of writ jurisdiction against interlocutory remand orders
