SRJ 1 wp-1526-08.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1526 OF 2008 Shri Rajshekhar V. Shivdare .. Petitioner V/s. The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society, South Solapur & Others .. Respondents. Shri Amit Borkar, for Petitioner. Shri Y.S.Jahagirdar, Sr. Advocate i/b. Shri Anand Kulkarni, for Respondent Nos.3 to 16. Shri S.N.Bhosle, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1,2, & 18 to 20. Shri Gautam Tiwari i/b. M.s ALMT Legal, for Respondent No. 17. CORAM :R.V.MORE,J. DATE :4th AUGUST,2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The Petition pertains to registration of Respondent Nos.3 to 16 Co-operative multipurpose Societies. The registration to these societies were initially granted by Respondent No.1 Assistant Registrar by an order dated 15 th November, 2006. This order was challenged by the various societies, claiming to be the existing society in a village as well as by the Petitioner by filing separate appeals before Respondent No.18  SRJ 2 wp-1526-08.sxw Deputy Joint Registrar. The challenge was negated and thereafter, revision application were filed under section 154 of the Co-operative Societies Act (herein after referred to as the said Act) before Hon ble Minister for Co-operation, Marketing & Textiles, by the said society as well as Petitioner. By the order dated 20 th February, 2008, the Hon ble Minister dismissed the Revision Applications. This order is impugned in the present Writ Petition. 3. At the outset, note must be taken of the fact that the Petitioner claims to be the member of board of directors of Respondent No.17. He is directly not concerned with Respondent Nos.3 to 16. It is also pertinent to note that none of the alleged existing society has challenged the order passed by the Hon ble Minister confirming the order of registration initially granted by the Respondent No.1-Assistant Registrar. 4. The Petitioner challenges the registration of Respondent Nos.3 to 17 mainly on the ground that the same is in breach of G.R. dated 7 th February, 2001, a copy of which is annexed at page 177 of compilation of the Writ Petition. Shri Borkar submitted that the said resolution was passed by the State Government by exercising power conferred on it by virtue of section 4 of the said Act. He submitted that under the said G.R., the new multipurpose co-operative societies cannot be registered unless and until it is shown that the turnover of the existing as well as proposed society is at lease Rs.50/-lakhs p.a. He further submitted that the registering authority as well SRJ 3 wp-1526-08.sxw as Appellate and Revisional authority failed to consider this G.R. and granted and confirmed registration to the Respondent Nos.3 to 16 and, therefore, registration deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Shri Jahagirdar,learned Senior counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.3 to 16 on the contrary relied upon subsequent G.R. dated 24 th August, 2001. He submitted that the Appellate and Revisional authority while rejecting the appeal and revision of Petitioner, have referred this G.R. He submitted that under this G.R. criteria laid down in G.R. dated 7 th February, 2001 cannot be made applicable to the proposed society, if it is first society in a revenue village. He further submitted that out of 14 societies (Respondent Nos.3 to 16), proposals of 11 societies for registration was from the newly created revenue villages. So far as rest of three societies are concerned, the existing society have given no objection for registration and, therefore, no fault can be found in the impugned order. 6. Having considered the rival submissions of the respective counsel and having gone through the compilation of the Writ Petition and especially G.R. dated 7 th February, 2001 and 24 th August, 2001, I find no merit in the Petition. 7. The resolution dated 7 th February, 2001 is passed by the Government of Maharashtra, Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department. Subsequent resolution dated 24 th August, 2001 is also passed by the Government of SRJ 4 wp-1526-08.sxw Maharashtra, Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department. Both the resolutions are passed in pursuant to the power conferred upon the Government under section 4 of the said Act. Validity and legality of these resolutions is not challenged by the Petitioner in this Petition. Thus, I have to see whether the registration granted to Respondent Nos.3 to 16 is in accordance with the above Government resolutions dated 7 th February,2001 and 24 th August, 2001. It is true that under earlier Government resolutions, it was mandatory to have turnover of Rs.50 lakhs of proposed and existing society each and unless this condition is complied with, registration cannot be granted. However, by later resolution, the conditions of the earlier resolutions are relaxed in case of registration of the first society in a revenue village. The later resolution sufficiently makes it clear that the criteria of earlier resolutions are not applicable to the registration of the first society in a revenue village. 8. There is no dispute that the villages in which Respondent Nos.4 to 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15 and 16 are registered, are newly entered revenue villages. Respondent Nos.4 to 7, 9, 10, 12,14,15 and 16 are first Multipurpose Co-operative Societies without villages. Thus, so far as these societies are concerned, criteria of G.R. dated 7 th February, 2001 cannot be made applicable and in my view, they are correctly registered. So far as registration of Respondent Nos.8, 11 and 13 are concerned, already there is one society existing in a village and, therefore, the SRJ 5 wp-1526-08.sxw criteria of G.R. dated 7 th February, 2001 is applicable. However, admittedly, in all these cases, the existing society has given no objection for registration. The existing societies have also not challenged the order passed by the Hon ble Minister. 9. Now, let us consider the Petitioner s locus to challenge the registration of Respondent Nos.3 to 16. As stated above, Petitioner claim to be the member of the board of director of Respondent No.17-Bank. The Petitioner is not the resident of any of the village in which Respondent Nos.3 to 16 are registered. The Petitioner claims that his interest is adversely prejudiced as much as, these societies are registered in his constituency. In fact, the existing society in the area of operation of Respondent Nos.8, 11 and 13 have given no objection for registration. Rest of the Respondent Societies are correctly and legally registered. In the facts and circumstances, I find the registration of Respondent Nos.3 to 16 is granted in accordance with the section 4 and 9 of the said Act. I also find that the Petitioner has no locus. 10. Mr. Borkar also submits that the Government in pursuant of recommendation of Vaidyanathan Committee took decision on 11 th January, 2007, not to register Multipurpose Society and, therefore, registrations are liable to be quashed and set aside. The said decision was taken subsequent to the order dated 15 th November, 2006 under which Respondent No.1 directed registration of SRJ 6 wp-1526-08.sxw Respondent nos.3 to 16 and, therefore, the decision taken by the Government in pursuance of the Vaidyanathan Committee s recommendations cannot be made applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. This point was not argued either before the Appellate authority or before the Revisional authority. Even there are no pleadings in the Writ Petition in that regard. This objection is raised for the first time at the stage of arguments. I am, therefore, not inclined to give weightage to the same. 11. The lower authority have approached the matter from correct point of view and, therefore, no reason to interfere under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. (R.V.MORE,J.)