1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7727 OF 2007 Anant Krishna Patil & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for petitioners Mr.V.M.Parshurami i/b. Ashish S. Gaikwad for respondent Nos. 5 to 16 Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 6th February 2008 P.C. . This petition is directed against the order passed by the Minister of State for Cooperation and Textiles, Government of Maharashtra dated 5th September 2007 allowing revision application and quashing and setting aside the show cause notice dated 5th July 2007. 2. Applicants before the Minister were aggrieved by an order dated 23rd July 2007 passed 2 by the Divisional Joint Registrar in Revision Application No.295 of 2007 (styled as Appeal). The Divisional Joint Registrar refused to interfere with the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Taluka Chandgad, Dist.Kolhapur dated 5th July 2007. The show cause notice was addressed to the applicants before the Minister calling upon them to furnish explanation and show cause as to why action under section 78(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act be not initiated against them. 3. Applicants before the Minister are the Managing Committee Members of a Cooperative Society. 4. Petitioners before me had moved the authorities complaining that the acts of omission and commission on the part of respondent Nos. 5 to 14 should be taken cognisance of and 3 appropriate action be initiated against them. There were serious allegations made of mismanagement of affairs of the society. 5. The Assistant Registrar concerned thought it fit to issue a show cause notice and called for explanation. It is at that stage that respondent Nos. 5 to 14 before me approached the Divisional Joint Registrar and sought his intervention to quash and set aside the show cause notice. He refused to do so and aggrieved by his order, another revision application was preferred which has been allowed by the Minister. This is how the Minister’s order is challenged before me. 6. I have perused the annexures to the petition, including the impugned order. 7. To my mind the Minister was in clear error in interfering with the show cause notice. 4 This Court as early as in 1993, in the case reported in 1993 Mh.L.J. 178 (Kumbhargaon Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Seva Society Vs. Assistant Registrar, C.S. & Ors.) has observed that the Government cannot and should not usurp the powers which are conferred upon the Registrar under the M.C.S.Act. The Registrar is treated as Independent Authority under the Scheme of the Act and not bound by the directions of his superiors. This Court observed that the Registrar must act impartially, fairly and independently and not answer the commands of those in power. This is a glaring instance where the Assistant Registrar having decided to issue a show cause notice, his authority is sought to be curbed and interfered with by the Minister at a stage at which his intervention was wholly unnecessary. If a Show Cause Notice is issued enough opportunity is available to the aggrieved persons to show cause and give an explanation so also to substantiate their version, when the proceedings are under 5 way. For all one knows, the Assistant Registrar may drop the proceedings, if he is satisfied with the explanation. 8. However, just because, show cause notice was issued, the aggrieved persons rushed to the Revisional Authority and sought its intervention. The Divisional Joint Registrar was admittedly exercising powers under section 154 of the M.C.S. Act and he having refused to interfere, the plain duty of the Minister was not to entertain another round before him. Not only did he entertain the revision application but he has called for an explanation from the Assistant Registrar for having issued the show cause notice. Thereafter, the Assistant Registrar was present before the Minister with the records and certain queries were put to him. It is based upon the answer furnished by the Assistant Registrar to the Minister’s queries, that he has passed impugned order. In the impugned order, the learned 6 Minister has entered into merits of the controversy. There was no need for him to have given any finding on the merits of the charges. As to whether the said charges were sustainable or not must be decided by the Assistant Registrar in this case. Section 78 of the M.C.S. Act needs to be referred only for the purpose of enlightening the Government that it is opinion of the Registrar which is material and relevant therein. Registrar’s opinion must result in culmination of the proceedings one way or the other. Government ought not to thwart with Enquiry or proceedings. If this Intervention and interference is to be upheld, then, the very provision which confers power of removal of committee or members thereof on the Registrar, would be rendered nugatory. 9. In these circumstances, the order of Minister cannot be sustained. The impugned order is accordingly quashed and set aside and that of 7 the Divisional Joint Registrar is restored. The Assistant Registrar now to proceed in furtherance of the show cause notice dated 5th July 2007 and pass such order as is permissible in law, without being influenced by any observations in the impugned order of Minister. 10. At this stage, Mr.Parshurami appearing for respondent Nos. 5 to 14 prays that in case the proceedings go on and result in an adverse order against them, the same may not be given effect to for a period of 15 days so as to enable the respondent Nos. 5 to 14 to file an Appeal. Firstly, this is not a petition by respondent Nos. 5 to 14. Secondly, I cannot proceed on the basis that the Assistant Registrar will remove respondent Nos. 5 to 14. The matter is at the stage of show cause notice. Further, when there is an Appeal provided against final order, naturally, the affected parties can always apply for stay therein. In such circumstances and even 8 otherwise, there is no basis for this apprehension. Request is refused. Petition is allowed in above terms. No costs. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)