WP 415/10 1 SSK/29 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 415 OF 2010 Shreeram Pani Wapar Sahakari Sanstha Limited, Pimpalnare. ....Petitioner Versus Shri Sukhdev Murlidhar Bunage & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Rameshwar Gite, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. M. Sabrad, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED :3rd AUGUST, 2010. P.C.: Heard Mr. Gite, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Sabrad, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr.Patne, learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 2. The petition pertains to the membership dispute under section 22 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Petitioner is a Lift Irrigation Society. The object of the said Society is to supply water for irrigation to the lands belonging to its members. The Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 made an application to the Petitioner – Society with a request to enroll WP 415/10 2 SSK/29 them as members of the Society. This application was neither considered nor replied by the Petitioner-Society within the stipulated period of three months as per section 22 of the M.C.S.Act, 1960. The Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Assistant Registrar for declaration that they have become deemed members of the Petitioner- Society. The Assistant Registrar by his order dated 29th August, 2007 allowed the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2’s application and directed the Petitioner-Society to enroll them as members. This order was challenged by the Petitioner-Society by filing revision under section 154 of the M.C.S.Act, 1960 before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik – Division, Nashik. The revision was also dismissed and therefore, the present petition. 3. Mr. Gite, learned Counsel for the Petitioner mainly contended that the land of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 does not fall within the area of operation of the Petitioner-Society and therefore, they were not eligible to be enrolled as members of the Petitioner-Society. He relied upon the Bye- Laws of the Petitioner-Society. Mr. Sabrad, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 on the contrary supported the impugned order and relied upon the Rules of the Petitioner-Society by submitting that the Respondent Nos.1 & 2’s land falls within the area of operation of the Petitioner-Society. He also submitted that the Petitioner-Society is WP 415/10 3 SSK/29 supplying water to the land adjoining to the Respondent Nos.1 & 2’s land. Infact, this adjoining land owners have been enrolled as members of the Petitioner-Society and therefore there is no merit in the contention of the Petitioner. He prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. The learned Assistant Registrar on page 7 of his order, recorded finding that the Respondents are the owners of Gat No.358 and the owners of the adjoining land i.e. Gat Nos.345, 359, 360 and 361 are enrolled by the Petitioner-Society as members. Further finding is also recorded that area of operation of the Petitioner-Society is entire area of Village- Pimpalnare and Respondent Nos.1 & 2’s land falls within Village – Pimpalnare and therefore, there are entitled to be enrolled as members. As stated above, the Divisional Joint Registrar has confirmed the order of the Assistant Registrar. 5. I have perused a copy of the Rules. The copy of the Rules was produced by the Petitioner-Society itself before the Assistant Registrar alongwith an application dated 25th June, 2007. Clause (A) is about General Information. Sub-clause A(4) of the Rules is about area of operation and entire Village-Pimpalnare is shown as area of operation. Clause A(12) is again about area of operation for the purpose of irrigation and entire area of Village – Pimpalnare is shown as area of operation. The WP 415/10 4 SSK/29 Bye-Laws of the Petitioner-Society referred above were not produced either before the Assistant Registrar or the Divisional Joint Registrar. The area of operation recorded in the bye-laws is as follows: a) The name of the Project – Minor Irrigation Tank, Pimpalnare, Taluka – Dindori. b) Canal Name- Pimpalnare Minor Irrigation Left Canal. c) Branch Name – Minor Irrigation, Dindori Division. d) Distribution/Minor Distribution - 1 to 11. e) Name of the Village-Pimpalnare. f) Area under Irrigation – 600 acre. Water Distribution is restricted to land coming within command area. Reading of the above clauses with the area of operation given in the Rules, if considered, in proper perspective, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that the Respondent Nos.1 & 2’s land falls in area of operation of Petitioner-Society. Similar finding is also recorded by the Assistant Registrar. The finding cannot be faulted in as much as admittedly the Petitioners are giving water to the land adjoining to the Respondent Nos.1 & 2’s land. Under section 23(4) of the M.C.S.Act, 1960, open membership is envisaged. The Petitioner without sufficient cause cannot WP 415/10 5 SSK/29 refuse membership to Respondent Nos.1 & 2. 6. In the light of the above observations, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 7. At this stage, Mr. Gite, learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks continuation of the status-quo granted on last date for a period of four weeks from today. Mr. Sabrad, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 has no serious objection. In that view of the matter and in the interest of justice, status-quo granted on 28th July, 2010 is continued for a period of four weeks from today. (R. V. MORE, J.)