Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gulabrao Sakharam Shelke, a former director of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Respondent No.5), filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging three orders: (i) order dated 07.01.2013 appointing Respondent No.2 as inquiry officer under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act); (ii) the inquiry report dated 09.01.2014; and (iii) order dated 22.05.2014 appointing Respondent No.3 as authorized officer under Section 88 of the MCS Act to fix responsibility for monetary losses. The petitioner contended that the inquiry under Section 83 was conducted without giving him an opportunity of hearing and that the inquiry report was based on documents not supplied to him. He also argued that the notice under Section 88 was vague and that he was not provided copies of documents despite his request. The respondents argued that the inquiry under Section 83 is a preliminary fact-finding exercise and does not require notice to individuals, and that the petitioner was given full opportunity at the Section 88 stage. The court examined the provisions of Sections 83 and 88 of the MCS Act and Rule 72 of the MCS Rules. It held that the inquiry under Section 83 is not a quasi-judicial proceeding and no prior notice is required. The court further held that the petitioner was given notice and opportunity to submit an explanation under Section 88, and he failed to show any prejudice caused by non-supply of documents. The court dismissed the petition, finding no violation of natural justice or legal infirmity in the impugned orders.
Headnote
A) Co-operative Law - Inquiry under Section 83 - Appointment of Inquiry Officer - The Registrar appointed an Additional Registrar to conduct an inquiry into the financial affairs of the bank under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioner, a former director, challenged the inquiry report and subsequent appointment of an authorized officer under Section 88. The court held that the inquiry under Section 83 is a fact-finding exercise and does not require prior notice to the petitioner. (Paras 1-3)
B) Co-operative Law - Appointment of Authorized Officer under Section 88 - Opportunity of Hearing - The Registrar appointed an authorized officer under Section 88 to fix responsibility for monetary losses. The petitioner was given notice and opportunity to submit explanation. The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice or violation of natural justice as he was afforded opportunity at the stage of Section 88 proceedings. (Paras 4-6)
C) Natural Justice - Supply of Documents - The petitioner requested copies of documents but did not specify which documents were necessary for his defence. The court held that the petitioner cannot claim denial of natural justice without showing that non-supply of documents caused prejudice. The proceedings under Section 88 are not akin to a criminal trial. (Paras 7-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned orders appointing an inquiry officer under Section 83 and an authorized officer under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and the inquiry report, are liable to be set aside for alleged violation of principles of natural justice and lack of opportunity to the petitioner.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Inquiry under Section 83 MCS Act
- Appointment of Authorized Officer under Section 88 MCS Act
- Supply of documents
- Opportunity of hearing
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (07) 149
Writ Petition (L) No.1671 of 2015
Mr. Uday G. Shelke i/b. Mr. K.B. Borhade for Petitioner; Mr. Vineet B. Naik, Senior Counsel with Mr. A.B. Vagyani, GP & Mr. Vishal Thadani, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4; Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Counsel with Ms. Nikita Trivedi for Respondent No.5
The Commissioner For Co-op. & Registrar For Co-op. Societies, Maharashtra State; Shri. Anil Kadoba Chauhan; Shri Shivajirao Pahinkar; The State of Maharashtra; The Maharashtra State Co-op. Bank Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging orders under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 07.01.2013 appointing inquiry officer, the inquiry report dated 09.01.2014, and the order dated 22.05.2014 appointing authorized officer.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that the inquiry under Section 83 was conducted without giving him an opportunity of hearing and that the inquiry report was based on documents not supplied to him, and that the notice under Section 88 was vague and he was not provided copies of documents.
Issues
Whether the inquiry under Section 83 of the MCS Act requires prior notice to the persons likely to be affected?
Whether the appointment of an authorized officer under Section 88 of the MCS Act without supplying copies of documents to the petitioner violates principles of natural justice?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the inquiry under Section 83 was conducted without giving him an opportunity of hearing and that the inquiry report was based on documents not supplied to him.
Petitioner argued that the notice under Section 88 was vague and that he was not provided copies of documents despite his request, violating natural justice.
Respondents argued that the inquiry under Section 83 is a preliminary fact-finding exercise and does not require notice to individuals.
Respondents argued that the petitioner was given full opportunity at the Section 88 stage and failed to show any prejudice.
Ratio Decidendi
The inquiry under Section 83 of the MCS Act is a fact-finding exercise and does not require prior notice to individuals. The proceedings under Section 88 are not akin to a criminal trial; the petitioner was given opportunity to submit explanation and failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by non-supply of documents. Hence, no violation of natural justice.
Judgment Excerpts
By the above petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has impugned the order dated 07.01.2013, the Inquiry Report dated 09.01.2014 and the order dated 22.05.2014.
The Petitioner was the Director of the Respondent No.5 Bank, namely Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd., an Apex Co-operative Bank for the State of Maharashtra, from the year 1992 to 2010.
The inquiry under Section 83 of the MCS Act is a fact-finding exercise and does not require prior notice to the petitioner.
Procedural History
The Registrar appointed an inquiry officer under Section 83 on 07.01.2013. The inquiry officer submitted report on 09.01.2014. The Registrar then appointed an authorized officer under Section 88 on 22.05.2014. The petitioner received notice on 16.10.2014 and requested documents on 30.10.2014. The petitioner filed the writ petition on an unspecified date, and the High Court dismissed it on 16.07.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960: Section 83, Section 88
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961: Rule 72(1)
- Constitution of India: Article 226
