1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1508 OF 2008 Ajinkya VKS Seva Sanstha & Ors. .. Petitioners Verus Proposed Rajarshi Sahu VKS .. Respondent Mr.Amit Borkar for petitioner Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for respondent Ms.V.S.Mhaispurkar for respondent No.2. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 27th March 2008 P.C. 1. This Writ Petition is directed against an Order passed by the Revisional Authority setting 2 aside the order of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Panhala and directing that the Revision Applicant, Proposed Rajarshi Sahu Vikas Seva Sanstha Maryadit and Ors, be registered as a Co-operative Society. 2. The petitioners before me are the existing Societies in the Village, namely Village- Porle Tarf Borgaon, Tal. Panhala, District-Kolhapur. Their grievance is that the proposal which was forwarded by the proposed Society came to be rejected by the Assistant Registrar relying upon the policy and more particularly the Circular dated 5.3.2007. 3. The Revisional Authority who is the Minister of State for Co-operation, Marketing and Textiles has reversed this order directing registration of the Co-operative Society and now the Society claims to have become functional. 3 4. The petitioners have pointed out that the Assistant Registrar was right in not registering the Society. The petitioners had pointed out that the Village has existing 2 Societies. The loan potential of existing Societies even if considered jointly, still does not exceed 50 lacs, which is the requirement stipulated. Further out of the total signatories to the proposal, 25 are included in the proposal of the proposed Society. These 25 persons are members the petitioner’s Society and had obtained loans but have defaulted in repayments. Further, 53 members from another existing Society are included in the proposal and even they have taken loans from Bharadi Devi Vividh Karyakari Sahakari (Vikas) Seva Society Ltd. Similarly, 14 common Members have submitted Affidavits stating that they are not interested in joining the proposal of the Applicant Society, Whereas, 7 common Members have also submitted identical Affidavits. 4 5. On the other hand, the proposed society pointed out that the total account holders are 473, land in cultivation is 583.64 hectares and finance capacity is more than 1.54 crores. There are enough number of members and the proposal is viable. The proposed society can cater to the needs of the villagers better because there are complaints about the working of the existing Societies. 6. The Assistant Registrar relying upon a circular held that the request to register the proposed society cannot be granted. He refers to the circular dated 5th March 2007 in that behalf. 7. The revisional authority has reversed this finding and relying upon some parawise remarks from the office of Assistant Registrar has observed that the agricultural land held by the members of the proposed society is worth financing to the extent of Rs.50 lakhs and more. 5 In such circumstances and in the interest of members at large, the proposal deserves to be accepted. 8. The order of the revisional authority is impugned before me on various grounds including those referred to above. It is brought to my notice that the circular which is in the field coupled with other directives would demonstrate that VKS societies are not economically viable and feasible and, therefore, a decision was taken to stop registering new societies. A rehabilitation package for assisting the existing societies, which are incurring losses, has been formulated and is under implementation. 9. The Revisional Authority has relied upon a report of the Assistant Registrar and has upheld the request of the proposed society. To my mind, the revisional authority was obliged to apply its mind to all aspects of the matter. It 6 was obliged to consider as to whether the circulars in the field have any bearing on the issue of registration of the proposed society or not and whether the interest of the existing societies would be prejudicially affected, so also, whether there is a scope for registration of third society in the village. It appears that the entire material which was placed before it by the petitioner (existing society) has not been scrutinised in the light of the policy circulars. The affidavits which were placed on record are conflicting and contradictory as would be clear from the written reply/submissions filed by the existing societies. In such circumstances with a view to give complete opportunity to both sides I indicated to learned Counsel for both parties that it would be desirable if the order under challenge is set aside and the Revision Application is restored to the file of the State Government for disposal afresh after hearing both sides. 7 10. Learned Counsel for both sides do not oppose this course of action. However, Mr.Patwardhan contends that in the mean time the registration has been granted and setting aside of the order of revisional authority should not result in automatic de-registration of the proposed society. In fact his submission is that the society is no longer a proposed society but a registered society. In my view, what effect the ultimate order of the revisional authority will have on the registration is something that the revisional authority and all concerned with the registration of Co-operative Societies should decide. It is not for this court to opine one way or the other on merits of the rival contentions. Ultimately, it is the function and duty of the authorities who are implementing the provisions of the Act and they have to take into account the impact of their conclusions. This Court is not issuing any directions either to 8 de-register the Respondent no.1 society or to reject the proposal of the proposed society. However, it is clarified that the Revision Application of the petitioners is not infructuous merely because the Respondent no.1 is registered. 11. The Order under challenge is set aside with this additional clarification. Upon remand, the matter must go back to the Secretary, Department of Cooperation, Textiles and Marketing who shall consider the rival cases in the light of the policy directives and circulars so also the materials placed by both sides. He must take an independent decision and should not be influenced by any observations in the order of the Minister which is quashed and set aside. Further, the Secretary not to be influenced by any reports which are placed before the Minister with regard to the viability of the proposal. He must take an independent decision on the issue of viability as well. The Secretary to dispose of 9 the revision within three months from the date of first appearance of parties. All contentions of both sides in that behalf are kept open. Petition disposed of. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)