1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.884 OF 1999 1. Mohatadevi Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sanstha Ltd., at village Madhi, Tq. Pathardi, Dist.Ahmednagar Through Chairman, Suman Sarjerao Kute Age : 35 years, Occ : Chairman & Agri., R/o Madhi, Tq.Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Kanifnath Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sanstha Ltd., Madhi, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar. Through Chairman Surendra Shankar Markad Age : 42 years, Occ : Chairman, R/o Madhi, Tq. Pathardi, Dist.Ahmednagar. 3. Adinath Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sanstha Ltd., Madhi, Tq. Pathardi, Dist.Ahmednagar, Through Chairman, Ramnath Gangadhar Pakhare Age : 45 years, Occ : Chairman, R/o Madhi, Tq.Pathardi, Dist.Ahmednagar. 4. Tuljamata Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sanstha Ltd., Madhi, Tq.Pathardi, Dist.Ahmednagar. Through Chairman Sow.Wenubai Bhimrao Markad Age : 58 years, Occ : Chairman & Household, R/o Madhi, Tq. Pathardi, Dist.Ahmednagar. 5. Navnath Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sanstha Ltd., Madhi, Tq. Pathardi, Dist.Ahmednagar. Through Chairman, Bhausaheb Bhanudas Markad Age : 50 years, Occ : Chairman & Agri., R/o Madhi, Tq.Pathardi, Dist.Ahmednagar. ..Petitioners 2 V/s 1. The State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader, High Court of Judicature of Bombay bench at Aurangabad). 2. The Hon'ble State Minister For Dairy Development Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 3. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Dairy), Khrist Galli, Ahmednagar, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. 4. The proposed Shivneri Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sanstha Ltd., Madhi, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar Through Chairman Sharad Murlidhar Markad Age : 25 years, Occ : Chairman, R/o Madhi, Tq. Pathardi, Dist.Ahmednagar. ..Respondents ......... Mr.D.R. Markad holding for N.K. Kakade, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. N.H. Borade, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr.S.L. Bhapkar, Advocate for respondent no.4. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 9th June, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By this Petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 12th January, 1999 passed by the Hon'ble Minister for State. By that order, the respondent no.4-Co-operative Milk Producing and Collection Society, was granted registration. 3 2. The petitioners are also similar societies dealing in procurement and sale of milk. They alleged that as per Government policy, no registration could be granted to more than three such societies dealing in collection and sale of milk in the area of village Madhi. They alleged that village Madhi is a small village without having irrigation facilities. They alleged that the milk supplied to their societies is likely to be reduced and grant of registration to the respondent no.4 may adversely affect them in business of collecting the milk. They further alleged that the impugned decision is not in keeping with the Government Resolution dated 2nd April, 1993. Consequently, they seek annulment of impugned decision. 3. Heard learned counsel. 4. It is important to note that the Government Resolution dated 2nd April, 1993 was subsequently revised and modified by the Government. It is replaced by Government Resolution dated 4th September, 1998. By the subsequent Government Resolution dated 4th September, 1998, the State has power to relax the conditions and to grant registration to more than four (4) Co- operative societies for the purposes of collecting and vending of 4 milk. The grant of such registration to the Co-operative society is a matter of Government policy. The registration may be refused if it is found that the co-operative society has no sound economic foundation. It can be also refused when it is found that the work of other such co-operative societies is likely to be adversely impaired due to the grant of registration and permission. It is important to note that the petitioners did not attend the hearing before the Hon'ble State Minister. The petitioners only agitated their objection by sending letter through post. It was the contention of the respondent no.4 that the petitioners were not collecting the milk supplied by its members, and therefore, the members were required to sell the milk outside the village limits. It also appears that the respondent no.4 showed that the petitioners were not collecting milk to the full extent of their capacity. The Hon'ble Minister found it fit to grant registration and permission to the respondent no.4 in given circumstance. The impugned decision does not show any act of perversity committed by the Hon'ble State Minister. As stated before, the Hon'ble Minister could have relaxed the conditions in exceptional case. It is manifest therefore that the impugned order is issued in exercise of such powers available to the State Minister. No ill-motive could be attributed to the said action. 5 5. Considering the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the Petition. The petition is dismissed accordingly. Rule discharged. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp884.99