Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose out of a dispute concerning the amendment of bye-laws of a specified co-operative society, the Yeotmal District Central Co-operative Bank Limited. The appellant, a member of the society, challenged the order of the single judge who had dismissed his writ petition against the modification made by the Divisional Joint Registrar to the proposed amendment. The society had, in its annual general meeting held on 14 August 2001, passed a resolution to increase the number of directors from 15 to 17 as required under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The proposed amendment was forwarded to the Registrar for approval. However, the Registrar, by order dated 27 November 2001, approved the amendment but modified it by restricting the increase to 16 directors instead of 17, purportedly to align with the policy of having one director per taluka. Aggrieved, the society preferred an appeal to the State Government which was dismissed. Thereafter, a writ petition was filed before the High Court. The single judge dismissed the petition on 12 June 2002, upholding the Registrar's order. The appellant then filed the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the single judge's decision. The core legal issue was whether the Registrar, while exercising power under Section 13, could modify the amendment proposed by the society or was limited to either granting or refusing approval. The appellant contended that the power of modification was only available under Section 14 read with Rule 13 and that the Registrar had exceeded his jurisdiction. The respondent State, on the other hand, argued that the modification was permissible under Rule 12(5) and was in public interest. The High Court examined the statutory provisions, noting that Section 13 mandates registration of bye-law amendments and that Rule 12(5) enables the Registrar to indicate modifications if satisfied that the amendment is not contrary to the Act or rules and is in the interest of the society and the co-operative movement. The court observed that the Registrar's modification did not render the amendment repugnant to any policy directives under Section 4 and was consistent with the object of equitable representation. Consequently, the court found no illegality in the Registrar's action and held that the single judge had rightly dismissed the writ petition. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Headnote
A) Co-operative Societies - Amendment of Bye-laws - Scope of Registrar's Power to Modify Proposed Amendment - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 Sections 13, 14; Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 Rules 12(5), 13 - Society sought to increase number of directors from 15 to 17; Registrar approved amendment up to 16 directors citing policy of one director per taluka. Appellant contended that under Section 13, Registrar has no power to modify, only approve or refuse, and modification must follow Section 14 procedure. Court examined statutory scheme, noting Rule 12(5) allows Registrar to indicate modification and amendment must be consistent with policy directives. Held that the Registrar's modification was in line with public policy and not illegal; single judge's dismissal of writ petition was correct; appeal dismissed (Paras 6-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Registrar under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 has power to modify the amendment proposed by the society, or is the power limited to either granting or refusing approval
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court upheld single judge's order and Registrar's modification, finding no illegality
Law Points
- Under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
- 1960
- the Registrar's primary function is to register the amendment as proposed or refuse it
- however
- Rule 12(5) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules
- 1961 permits the Registrar to indicate modifications
- any modification must be in the interest of the society and the co-operative movement and not repugnant to policy directives under Section 4
- where the modification aligns with public policy
- it may be sustained
