1 W.P.No.4441/11 REPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4441 OF 2011. The Dhule and Nandurbar District Primary Teacher's Cooperative Credit Society, Dhule through its General Manager, Shri Sanjay Takuram Pawar, Age 36 years, Occ.Manager, having office at Abhiyanta Nagar, Wadi Bhokar Road, Deopur Dhule, Tq. & Dist.Dhule. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Cooperation Department, Mantralaya,Mumbai-32. 2. The Minister of State for Cooperation Maharahstra State,Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nashik Division, Nashik. 4. Chandrakant Ramchandra Shinde, Age 48 years, Occ.Service, R/o Sudvia Nagar, Plot No.1, Nakane Road, Deopur, Dhule, Tq. & Dist.Dhule. 5. The Dhule and Nandurbar District Primary Teacher's Cooperative Credit Society,Dhule, 2 W.P.No.4441/11 through its Administrator. ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate holding for Mr.N.N.Desale, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.T.S.Lodhe, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.N.B.Suryawanshi, advocate holding for Mr.S.U.Choudhari, advocate for Respondent No.4. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 15.09.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The Respondent No.4 was working as a General Manager of the petitioner Cooperative Credit Society. Inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and eventually the services of the Respondent No.4 were terminated on 16.12.2010. The Respondent NO.4 assailed the said order of termination before the Hon'ble Minister. The Respondent NO.1 set aside the said order, allowed 3 W.P.No.4441/11 the Revision Application. The petitioner has assailed the said order of the Minister of State for Cooperation in the present Writ Petition. 4. Mr.Hon, learned counsel holding for Mr.Desale, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent No.1 i.e. Minister of State for Cooperation could not have exercised revisional jurisdiction U/s 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, inasmuch as the revisional jurisdiction is available only against the orders passed by the Subordinate Officer. In the present case, the petitioner is a Credit Cooperative Society. The said society had passed a Resolution in its meeting on 17.11.2010 accepting the inquiry report and thereafter the services of Respondent No.4 were terminated on 16.12.2010. Though the Administrator was appointed at that relevant time, still, simply because the Administrator was Assistant Registrar, that by itself would not make the Cooperative Society an Officer Sub- ordinate to the Respondent No.1. The learned counsel contends that the said order being 4 W.P.No.4441/11 without jurisdiction deserves to be set aside. 5. Mr.Suryawanshi, learned counsel holding for Mr.S.U.Choudhari, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 submits that the revisional jurisdiction has been properly exercised by the Minister, inasmuch as the order terminating the services of the Respondent No.4 was passed by the Administrator who was an Officer subordinate to the Minister and as such the said powers of revision were properly exercised. The learned counsel further contends that the order of termination issued by the petitioner society is itself void abinitio and bad in law in view of the violation of the bye-laws and such order can also be assailed in the Writ Petition before this Court. The learned counsel further contends that even the Minister can suo-motu exercise the powers of revision. 6. Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, reads as under : "154. Revisionary powers of State 5 W.P.No.4441/11 Government and Registrar (1) The State Government or the Registrar, suo-motu or on an application, may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or proceedings of any matter, other than those referred to in sub- section (9) of section 149, where any decision or order has been passed by any subordinate officer, and no appeal lies against such decision or order for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order, and as to the regularity of such proceedings. If in any case, it appears to the State Government, or the Registrar, that any decision or order so called for should be modified, annulled or reversed, the State Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, may, after giving the person affected thereby an opportunity of 6 W.P.No.4441/11 being heard, pass such orders thereon as to it or him may seem just." 7. Perusal of the said provision i.e. Section 154, it is manifest that the State Government or the Registrar can call for and examine the record of any inquiry or proceedings, where any decision or order has been passed by any 'subordinate Officer'. 8. The Officer subordinate would mean those officers who in performance of their various duties are subject to the direction and control of a superior Officer or are independent officers subject only to such discretions as the statute gives. The State Government should be in a position to exercise its domain over the said officer. A Revision would lie to the State Government from an order of any Officer subordinate to him. Here it would be a judicial subordination, that means judicial or quasi judicial administration or administrative subordination to the State Government. 7 W.P.No.4441/11 9. In the present case, Administrator was appointed over the petitioner Society at the relevant time. The said Administrator issued the termination order. The Administrator would be in place of the Managing Committee. Just because the Administrator appointed over the petitioner society was Assistant Registrar, that would not make him Officer subordinate to the Respondent No.1 because in effect the Administrator was representing the Credit Society i.e. the Managing Committee of the said Society and was not acting in the capacity of Assistant Registrar, so as to make him Officer subordinate of the present Respondent No.1. 10. The right of Revision is a creation of statute. No authority has inherent power of exercising Revisional jurisdiction. The same has to be exercised in the manner laid down by the statute. The order of termination issued by the Cooperative Society can not be assailed U/s 154 of the revisional jurisdiction in such matters. 11. In light of the above, the Respondent NO.1 did not have the jurisdiction to entertain 8 W.P.No.4441/11 the Revision. The said order is 'Coram non- judice' and as such is quashed and set aside. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (C). 12. At this stage, Mr.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 submits that Respondent No.4 be granted liberty to assail the order of termination dated 16.12.2010 before the appropriate forum. 13. Needless to state as the impugned order passed by the Revisional authority is set aside on the ground of jurisdiction, the Respondent No. 4 shall be at liberty to assail the said order of termination dated 16.12.2010, issued by the petitioner before the appropriate forum. It is made clear that I have not dilated on the other merits of the matter. All points are kept open. No costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp444111 9 W.P.No.4441/11 --------