1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 379 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2077 OF 2010 (The Nagpur Mahanagarpalika Karmachari Sahakari Bank Limited and another .v. State of Maharashtra and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri M.V. Samarth, Advocate for the appellants. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 06TH AUGUST, 2010. Learned Counsel for the appellants seeks leave to delete respondent No.3 as party-respondent. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 30.06.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 2077 of 2010 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed. The writ petition was directed against the order dated 31.03.2010 passed by respondent No.2-District Deputy Registrar so also against the noting made by the Minister on the letter dated 13.12.2009. The appellants have also impugned the corrigendum dated 17.04.2010 issued by respondent No.2. Shri M.V. Samarth, learned Counsel for the appellants, at the outset, invited our attention to the letter dated 13.12.2009 given by Rajesh Gopichand Gaware to the Hon'ble Minister for Cooperation, seeking enquiry in the affairs of the bank. On that letter, the Minister made an endorsement 'to enquire and to report'. In view thereof, Shri M.V. Samarth, learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently 2 submitted that this was an order in dictate and, therefore, the impugned action under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (for short “the said Act”) initiated by the District Deputy Registrar, on the basis thereof, deserves to be set aside. He submitted that the enquiry contemplated under Section 83 of the said Act can be initiated and conducted either suo motu or on the complaint of 1/3rd members of the society and the Minister has no right to issue any such direction. In support of his submission, he placed heavy reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla .v. Greenworld Corporation, Parwanoo (reported in 2009(7) SCC, 69) and in The Purtabpur Company Ltd. .v. Cane Commissioner of Bihar and others (reported in AIR 1970 SC, 1896). We have perused the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants and in our opinion these judgments would not apply to the facts of the present case. We are unable to accept the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the endorsement made by the Minister on the letter dated 13.12.2009 was in the nature of direction issued to the District Deputy Registrar to conduct an enquiry under Section 83(1) of the said Act. We have perused the order passed by the District Deputy Registrar dated 31.03.2010. From perusal of the said order, it is clear that the order was passed on the basis of the complaint of Rajesh Gaware, dated 13.12.2009, the complaints of Surendra Tingne, Director and Shareholders of the bank dated 11.12.2009, 14.12.2009 and 07.01.2010 respectively so also on the application of Shri Pramod Wankar dated 08.02.2010. It appears from the order dated 31.03.2010, the District Deputy Registrar, in view of the aforesaid complaints received by him, issued notice to the bank and the members of the managing committee and gave 3 them an opportunity to submit their reply and place relevant material on record in support of the reply to the complaints. The office bearers and the members of the managing committee of the bank were also heard by the District Deputy Registrar before passing the impugned order. He found that some illegalities in distribution of loan for housing to the members of the bank were committed during last three years. He also found that some illegalities/irregularities having been committed regarding the land purchase, purchase of computer and permanent appointment of the employees in the bank. In view thereof, he seems to have passed the impugned order directing an enquiry under Section 83 of the said Act. This clearly shows that the District Deputy Registrar independently applied his mind to the facts of the case in the light of the complaints made by different persons and found it necessary to initiate suo motu enquiry under Section 83 of the said Act. The learned Single Judge while considering the very same arguments as advanced before us, relying upon the very same judgments of the Supreme Court, has made the following observations :- “The representation dated 13.12.2009 or 16.12.2009 addressed to respondent No.3 carries at its top a hand written endorsement by the Hon'ble Minister asking respondent No.2 to enquire and to report. The communication dated 11.02.2010 issued by respondent No.2 to the Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner mentions the representation dated 13.12.2009 only. The said communication only notes that the said representation is addressed to the Hon'ble Minister. Further it is also stated that the office of respondent No.2 had already called for the explanation in this respect on 21.12.2009. On 11.01.2010 the reply of petitioner Bank on issues raised in representation was called for within 8 days. This communication dated 21.12.1999 is also not produced by the petitioners before this Court. 4 The perusal of notice dated 31.03.2010 shows that it makes reference to representation dated 13.12.2009 and to the explanation furnished by the petitioner Bank on three dates and to other correspondence and then it shows that a preliminary hearing was conducted on 17.03.2010. The documents furnished by the petitioner Bank were scrutinized and respondent No.2 has recorded a prima facie finding that there was negligence in discharging the obligations on the part of the petitioner. Because of this preliminary finding, respondent No.2 found it necessary to verify the matter in detail and hence enquiry under Section 83 has been ordered. Thus, this notice dated 31.03.2010 no where discloses that it is under the influence of respondent No.3. On the contrary, it clearly shows that there is independent application of mind by respondent No.2 and he has suo motu found it necessary to conduct inquiry under Section 83. In any case the endorsement made by the Hon'ble Minister is only to enquire and to submit report. The Hon'ble Minister has not taken any particular stand in the matter and has not called for action under Section 83 of the Act.” It is against this backdrop, we are satisfied that the District Deputy Registrar cannot be stated to have passed the impugned order either at the instance of the Minister or in view of the endorsement made by the Minister. While making the endorsement on the letter dated 13.12.2009, the Minister was not exercising any power under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and/or cannot be stated to have had interfered with the powers of Deputy Registrar under Section 83 of the said Act. We are also unable to agree with the submissions of Shri M.V. Samarth, learned Counsel for the appellants that the endorsement made by the Minister on the letter dated 13.12.2009 was in the nature of issuing direction/order to the 5 District Deputy Registrar to initiate enquiry under Section 83 of the said Act since there is no provision in the Act which empowers the Minister to pass such order/issue such direction. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.