vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7107 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7107 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7107 OF 2008 Shri Jiten M. Desai & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. The Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Y.S. Jahagirdar with S.K. Shinde i/b Sagar Kasar for Petitioner Mr.R.M. Patne, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 Mr.S.G. Aney wit Mr.Tamhane for Resp. No.5 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 22, 2008 OCTOBER 22, 2008 OCTOBER 22, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petitioner has been filed against the orders passed in the review application filed u/s 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act by the Minister for Cooperation, State of Maharashtra. The main grievance in the petition is that there was no effective consultation with the Federal Society before action was taken against the petitioners superceding the managing committee of the society. 2. Before the Managing Committee of a society can be superceded u/s 78 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act the Registrar must consult the Federal Society as required under Rule 64(2). In the case of Suresh Dyandeo Khumkar & Ors. v/s. State of : 2 : Maharashtra & Ors., 1987 Mh.L.J. 475, 1987 Mh.L.J. 475, 1987 Mh.L.J. 475, the Division Bench of this Court has observed that consultation with the Federal Society must be effective and in paragaphs 9 and 10, the Division Bench has observed thus: 9. The above conditions would show that for having effective consultation, the consulting authority must place sufficient material and give all relevant information to the Federation, so that it can form its opinion in regard to the matters upon which it is being consulted. The second requirement is that sufficient time must be given to the Federation for giving its opinion. In our view, even assuming that the requirement of consultation is considered as directory, it is necessary for the consulting authority to comply with the above two conditions, in order to make substantial compliance with the requirement of consultation under section 78 of the Act and rule 64(2) of the rules framed thereunder. It is well settled that even if a rule is construed as directory, it does not mean that it need not be complied with at all. What is then required is that it must be substantially complied with failing which such non-compliance would render the action void. 10. In the instant case, except sending a copy of the show-cause notice, no other relevant material was sent to the Federation so that it would form its opinion and send it to the District Deputy Registrar within a reasonable time. Even the copy of the reply submitted by the petitioners in answer to the show cause notice under section 78 of the Act was not sent to the Federation. In these circumstances, there is no compliance with two conditions referred to above and hence there is no consultation much less any effective consultation as contemplated by section 78 of the Act read with rule 64(2) of the Rules framed thereunder. The impugned order of supersession thus must fail on this ground." 3. In the present case, the show-cause notice was : 3 : issued on 26.9.2008 by the consulting authority i.e. the Registrar. The petitioners were required to reply to the show-cause notice by 10.10.2008. It appears that the Federal Society sent its letter to the Registrar on 19.10.2008, stating that since the petitioners had not replied to the show-cause notice, the Government should take necessary action in the matter. This letter was issued by the Federation on 19.10.2008. 4. An affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Registrar, N-Ward, Cooperative Societies in which there is no averment made that the report of the Government was sent to the Federal Society for it to form an opinion as to whether there was material in order to frame charges against the petitioners. There was therefore, no effective consultation as contemplated by section 78 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act r/w rule 64(2) of the Rules framed thereunder. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. 5. The consulting authority i.e. the Registrar shall place before the Federal Society the report for it to form an opinion as to whether there was sufficient material to frame a charge against the petitioners. If the petitioners have filed a reply to the show-cause notice issued to them the same shall also be sent to the Federal Society which will then act in accordance with : 4 : law and complete the consultative process effectively. 5. The Petition is disposed of accordingly. During the pendency of the consultative process and thereafter till orders are passed by the Registrar, the petitioners shall manage and carry on only day to day affairs of the society. No major policy decisions, including enrolling of members or permitting transfer of flats/tenaments in the building of the petitioner society will be undertaken during this period.