1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.383 OF 2008 Danwad VKS (Vikas) Sevasanstha Ltd. through Changonda Devgonda Patil .. Petitioner Versus Proposed late Ramgonda Satgonda Patil (Vikas) Seva Sanstha Mydt. and Ors. .. Respondents. Dr.V.K.Choudhari for petitioner Mr.Tejpal Ingale for respondent No.1 Ms.V.S.Mhaispurkar, A.G.P. for State CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19th March 2008 P.C. . This petition is directed against the order of Revisional Authority, who in this case has allowed the revision application of first respondent and accepted the case of the registration of society in the subject village. The grounds raised in the petition, apart from 2 urging that no new documents can be considered, has also brought to my notice policy decisions and circulars of the State Government and more particularly of 7th February 2001 and 5th March 2007 which make it obligatory on the part of the authorities to consider as to whether registration of new society would be detrimental to the new societies and make them unviable economically or not. This satisfaction has to be arrived at before taking any decision with regard to registration of fresh or new society. The Minister was seized of the grievances of the first respondent against the order passed by the lower authority i.e. Divisional Joint Registrar, C.S. dated 3rd January 2007. The Divisional Joint Registrar has made the following observations:- ". After going through the documents produced on record and arguments of rival parties, it is crystal clear that from 3 the village Danwad the proposed appellant society has filed its proposal for registration and there is objection raised by respondent No.1 society. According to the submissions of appellant society, the village Nave Danwad is a separate revenue village but the documentary evidence mainly the certificate issued by Tahasildar Shirol on 2/1/2006 shows that village Nave Danwad and old Danwad are not a separate revenue villages, but there is only one revenue village. On the contrary in the proposal of the appellant society the certificate issued by Tahsildar on 16/11/2005 shows that the Nave Danwad is a separate revenue village. Considering the certificate dated 2/1/2006 which is more explanatory because Tahsildar has mentioned particularly Nave Danwad and Old Danwad. In this respect I do not 4 find as to why he has issued both certificates contrary. Moreover in respect of the fulfilment of norms as laid down under G.R. dated 7/2/2001 I do find also whether the proposal of the appellant society is fulfilling the criteria as laid down under above G.R. In view of this only I relied on the letter issued by Hon’ble Commissioner dated 30/1/2006 which pertains to more explanatory clarification from the objection raised by respondent No.1 society and recommendations thereupon. According to this letter the respondent No.3 has not complied with the letter dated 30/1/2006. Considering this aspect it is necessary to dispose this appeal with direction to the respondent No.3 to verify the objection raised by the respondent No.1 society as per letter dated 30/1/2006. In view of above 5 observations I pass the following order:- ". The appeal is hereby disposed of with direction to the respondent No.3 to comply with the letter issued by Hon’ble Commissioner dated 30/1/2006 and accordingly compliance report be sent to the Hon’ble Commissioner through this authority." 2. The circular is of 5th March 2007 and the same refers to earlier circular dated 8th March 2006. The data available with the Government shows that about 12756 VKS societies are running in loss and, therefore various schemes for rehabilitation of the same are under implementation. Now, the decision was taken that no new registration be done until the rehabilitation process is underway. This was specifically pointed out by the petitioner during the course of hearing of revision application. 6 The revisional authority at internal pages 5 to 9 of its order refers to the rival contentions and while holding that it is aware of the policy decisions and circulars, yet, proceeds to grant request of the first respondent by cryptic observations and relying upon the no objection certificate of the existing societies. 3. These are matters where the State’s own policy directives and circulars have great bearing and that is how sections 4 and 7 of the MCS Act also proceeds. Registration of societies has to be done strictly in accordance with the same and the provisions of the Act. The grievance that the registrations are encouraged and done for accommodating politically affiliated persons and societies and, therefore, the order deserves to be quashed and set aside merits consideration in the peculiar facts of this case. When the Minister has ignored policy directives, then the order under challenge cannot be 7 sustained. It is accordingly quashed and set aside. The revision application shall stand restored to the file of Government and in this case, instead Minister for Cooperation deciding the same, it shall be decided by the Secretary in the Cooperation, Textiles and Marketing department, strictly in accordance with law and the policy circulars so also without being influenced by the observations of the Minister. 4. Needless to state that it would be open for the first respondent society to urge that after the impugned order, the society has been registered and it has started functioning. The Secretary to consider that aspect as well while passing final order. Needless to state that I have not passed any orders either de-registering the respondent No.1 society if it is already registered or staying its functioning if it is functional. I have directed that the revision application of the said society (which is claimed 8 to have been registered now) to be considered afresh. Whatever consequences in law that has and the final orders therein are for the society to face and that does not mean that this Court cannot step in, in its jurisdiction under Article 227 if the order under challenge suffers from a patent error and is also perverse. Revision application to be decided within three months from the date of appearance of parties. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. All contentions of both sides including on maintainability of the revision application are kept open. Petition disposed of. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)