1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1453 OF 2010 Dharangaon Taluka Dekhrekh Sahakari Sangh Limited, Dharangaon, Tq. Dharangaon, District Jalgaon Through its Chairman Gokulsingh S/o Pralhad Patil, Age 60 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Paldi(Bk) Tq. Dharangaon, District Jalgaon .. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Co-operation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2) The Commissioner for Co-operation and the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3) The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jalgaon District Jalgaon. 4) The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies Dharangaon, Tq. Dharangaon District Jalgaon RESPONDENTS. ... Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 13th April, 2010. JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 26th April, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.) 1. Heard learned counsel Shri V.D. Hon for the petitioner, Shri S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. The petitioner in present Writ Petition, impugns communication dated 07/12/2009 issued by the Commissioner for Co-operation and the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, M.S., Pune addressed to District Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies, regarding implementing Vaidyanathan Committee Report. 3. The Petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and is a supervising unit concerned with the cadre of the Secretaries constituted U/Sec. 69-A of the Societies Act. According to the petitioner its area of operation extends to Jalgaon District. 3 The Petitioner society has been constituted with the object of creating and maintaining the cadre of Secretaries, Managers and other paid employees of Primary agricultural credit and/or multi purpose co-operative societies and also such other class of societies as may be permitted by the State Government from time to time. According to the petitioner it is functioning in accordance with the provisions of Societies Act, Rules and bye laws, which are duly approved. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri V.D. Hon, strenuously contended that the Commissioner vide impugned communication has withdrawn the functions of the petitioner Taluka Sangh, and thereby there is withdrawal of powers and function of the Taluka Sangh given bestowed by Section 69-A of the Societies Act under the legislative functions. According to the learned counsel as per Section Section 69-A (2A), the immediate initial supervisory control on the person appointed to the cadre and deputed or posted to work as Secretary under each of the societies referred in Sub Section (1) shall be 4 with the Taluka supervising societies consisting of the societies in each respective Taluka to which persons are deputed as members thereof. The Taluka supervision society shall exercise such powers and discharge such functions or perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed by it, by the bye laws of such society. According to the learned counsel, the said Sub Section (2A) of Section 69 was introduced by way of an amendment,whereby powers were given to the Taluka Supervision Sangh society like petitioner. According to the petitioner’s learned counsel, impugned communication is in gross violation of Sub Section (1) and (2A) of Section 69-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and as such prayed for quashing the said communication. 5. Shri S.K. Kadam, learned A.G.P. for respondents submitted that the said communication is perfectly legal and valid and is in consonance with the Vaidyanathan Committee Report, so also is perfectly in accordance with the Sub Section 7 of Section 69-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative 5 Societies Act, 1960. Section 69-A (7) reads thus :- “ Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub Section (1) to (6), on and from the 1st day of January, 2009, nothing in sub sections (1) to (6) shall apply in a co- operative credit structure entity.” Co-operative Credit structure entity is defined Under Section 2(10-aii-1) which reads thus :- “ Section 2(10-aii-1) “Cooperative credit structure entity” means the primary agricultural credit co-oprative society, the District Central Co-operative Bank or the State Co-operative Bank.” Sub Section 7 of section 69-A starts with the non-obstante clause, which lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub Sections (1) to (6) nothing in Sub Section (1) to (6), would apply to Cooperative, credit structure entity, as such in view of Sub Section 7 of Section 69-A the said impugned communication dated 7/12/2009 is not contrary to Section 69-A but is in consonance with the same. While reading Section 69-A(1) and Sub section (2-A), Sub 6 Section 7 of Section 69-A cannot be ignored. It starts with a non-obstante clause, as such effect will have to be given to Sub Section 7 of Section 69-A. The said provision categorically lays down that the right envisaged in Sub Section (1) to (6) of Section 69-A would not be available to Co- operative credit structure entity. In such circumstances, as the impugned communication does not suffer from any illegality, nor is against any provision of law but is in accordance with the letters and spirit of Sub Section 7 of Section 69-A, the present Writ Petition challenging the said communication is not sustainable, as such the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. In the result, Writ Petition is dismissed, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] SDM* WP;2897.10 (J)