1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2354 OF 1991. Shyamsunder S/o Goverdhanji Heda, Aged 33 years, Occ.Service, R/o Shukravar Peth, Opp. Laxminarayan Mandir, Beed, Dist.Beed. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Taluka Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Beed. 3. Dwarkadas Mantri Nagri Sahkari Bank Ltd., Beed Hiralal Chowk, Beed, through its Chief Executive Officer, 4. The Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.S.Choudhari, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.D.R.Kale, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1,2 and 4. Mr.N.P.Bangar, advocate for the Respondent No.3 - absent. 2 ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 11.01.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges judgment and order dated 3.5.1991, rendered by learned Member of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Aurangabad in an appeal bearing No.49/1990. By the impugned judgment, the Cooperative Appellate Court was pleased to allow appeal preferred by the Respondent No.3 Bank against petitioner's reinstatement order rendered by the Respondent No.2 - Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager on establishment of the Respondent No.3 Bank. The Board of Directors resolved in a meeting dated 20.3.1990 to remove the petitioner for the reason that the post of Assistant Manager was not an approved post nor provided for in the staffing pattern. The Bank issued a notice and informed him that he stood terminated w.e.f. 12.4.1990. 3 The petitioner, therefore, approached the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Beed against the termination order. By invoking powers U/s 79 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, the Deputy Registrar directed reinstatement of the petitioner. The Respondent No.3 Bank preferred an appeal (Appeal No.49/1990). The learned Member of the Cooperative Appellate Court held that no power was available to the Deputy Registrar to reinstate the petitioner. It is held that reinstatement could not be ordered by invoking powers U/s 79 of the MCS Act. Hence, the Cooperative Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of reinstatement issued by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperatives. 3. Question involved in this petition is: "Whether the Cooperative Appellate Court could have invoked appellate jurisdiction in order to interfere with the order rendered by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperatives.?" 4 4. Heard learned counsel. 5. At this juncture, it may be clarified that merits regrading exercise of powers by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperatives are not being considered because it is necessary to examine such issue in an appropriate proceeding. Whether the Deputy Registrar of Cooperatives could have power to interfere with the departmental action or question regarding employment, relating to the removal of the petitioner U/s 79 of the MCS Act, is not being touched herein. 6. Admittedly, no order was passed by the Cooperative Court as such. What appears from the record is that the Deputy Registrar assumed the powers available U/s 79 of the MCS Act because the termination was outcome of a resolution passed by the Board of directors. The Bank has not placed on record bylaws or set of Rules pertaining to recruitment and disciplinary actions against the staff members and more particularly one who was working as the Assistant Manager. Whether the Board of Directors could 5 have power to terminate the petitioner is another issue. The appellate powers are provided U/s 152 of the MCS Act. Section 152 of the MCS Act reads as follows : "152. Appeals (1) An appeal against an order or decision [under sections 4,9,11,12,13, 14,18, 19, 21A, 29, 35, 77A, [78,79, 88 and 105 including an order for paying compensation to a society] shall lie,-" 7. A plain reading of sub-section (4) of Section 152 of the MCS Act would make it amply clear that the orders passed under the Act can not be appealed against unless there is express provision which permits filing of the appeal. It is, however, made clear that such orders shall always be subject to provision for revision. The appeal against order issued in the exercise of power U/s 79 of the MCS Act, would lie to the Additional Registrar or Joint Registrar. The power of the Cooperative Appellate Court are also 6 clarified vide Section 152(2) of the MCS Act. In the present case the order was not passed by the Cooperative Court. Obviously, the Cooperative Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperatives. The Respondent No.3 ought to have preferred Revision Application as provided U/s 154 of the MCS Act It is well settled that an appeal is a statutory right. It is not a substantial right of a party. Hence, it must be held that an appeal can be preferred only when the statutory provision is clear and would allow entertainment of such appeal against any judgment or order. In the present case, the Cooperative Appellate Court failed to examine the jurisdictional issue in proper perspective. It appears that the jurisdictional issue was raised before the Cooperative Appellate Court and, yet, it was not analysed and decided with reference to the relevant legal provision. The Cooperative Appellate Court held that the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to pass the order of reinstatement by invoking powers U/s 79(2) of the MSC Act. At the same time, however, it ought to 7 have been seen that the Cooperative Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal itself and direction should have been given to the Respondent No.3 Bank to prefer Revision petition or to seek any other remedy against the said order rendered by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperatives. The Bank could have also claimed immunity from the order of the Deputy Registrar on the ground that it was nullity for want of jurisdiction. That was not done. The Recruitment Rules and the Regulations are not placed on record nor there is reply affidavit is filed. In this view of the matter, it will have to be said that the impugned judgment rendered by the Cooperative Appellate Court is unsustainable for want of jurisdiction and authority. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Cooperative Appellate Court is quashed. No order as to costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp235491 8