Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, objectors, challenged an order dated 13 February 2015 passed by Respondent No.2 (the cooperative authority) which they claimed was without reason and failed to consider their specific objection raised on 6 February 2015. The respondent society, Chhatrapati Rajaram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., resisted the objection by pointing to the Model byelaws adopted on 17 February 2015, specifically byelaw No.7(8). The learned AGP for Respondent No.2 also resisted the petitions. The court, after hearing both parties, noted that the respondent society is the same and the impugned order is common. The court observed that byelaw No.7(8) provides that if a member does not deposit the amount of share within three years, the Board of Directors has the right to seize that advance amount, but before doing so, one year time is to be granted to the member by giving 15 days notice. The court found that the authority had dealt with the provisions of the byelaws and the submission that the order lacked reason was unacceptable. The court also noted that the reference to Section 11 regarding qualification/disqualification was beyond the jurisdiction of the authority and the society had not yet finalized those aspects. Consequently, the court dismissed all three writ petitions.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Law - Share Forfeiture - Byelaw 7(8) - Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - The court considered the validity of an order permitting forfeiture of share advance amounts for non-deposit within three years. The court held that the byelaw provides for a one-year grace period and 15 days notice before seizure, and the authority had considered the objections. The writ petitions were dismissed as the order was reasoned and within jurisdiction. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 13 February 2015 passed by Respondent No.2 is without reason and fails to consider the objections raised by the petitioners regarding share forfeiture under byelaw No.7(8).
Final Decision
All three writ petitions are dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Cooperative Society Byelaws
- Share Forfeiture
- Opportunity of Hearing
- Writ Jurisdiction
Case Details
Writ Petition No. 1787 of 2015, Writ Petition No. 1796 of 2015, Writ Petition No. 1801 of 2015
Mr. R.V. Pai a/w Mr. P.D. Dalvi for the Petitioners, Mr. Amit Borkar for Respondent No.1, Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
Balaso Tukaram Patil; Anant Shrihari Patil & Anr.; Sagar Bajirao Randive & Ors.
Chhatrapati Rajaram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging an order of the cooperative authority regarding share forfeiture.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to quash the order dated 13 February 2015 passed by Respondent No.2.
Filing Reason
The petitioners alleged that the impugned order was without reason and failed to consider their specific objection raised on 6 February 2015.
Previous Decisions
The cooperative authority passed the impugned order on 13 February 2015.
Issues
Whether the impugned order is without reason and fails to consider the objections raised by the petitioners.
Whether the authority had jurisdiction to decide on qualification/disqualification under Section 11.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the order dated 13 February 2015 was without reason and failed to consider their objection dated 6 February 2015.
Respondent No.2 and the society argued that the byelaws, specifically byelaw No.7(8), provide for the procedure of share forfeiture and the order was reasoned.
Ratio Decidendi
The impugned order is not without reason as the authority considered the byelaws and the objections. The issue of qualification/disqualification under Section 11 is beyond the jurisdiction of the authority and the society has not finalized those aspects.
Judgment Excerpts
The submission of no reason, in view of the objection so raised, is unacceptable.
The reference therefore, so made of Section 11, as the question of qualification and/or disqualification need to be adjudicated in view of the objections so raised, revolving around the allegations of 'Defaulters' and such issue is beyond the jurisdiction of this Authority and the fact that the Society has not yet finalized those aspects by following the procedure.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the order dated 13 February 2015 passed by Respondent No.2. The court heard the parties and dismissed the petitions by common order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960: Section 11
