1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1825 OF 2010 (Kaniram s/o Dhansingh Jadhao and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED : APRIL 21, 2010 Heard Shri Parchure, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Dangre, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 to 4, and Shri Ghare, learned Counsel for the respondent no.5. Shri Parchure, learned Counsel for the petitioners, states that the respondent no.5 is a specified cooperative Society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and is engaged in the production of sugar. It is contended that all the petitioners were elected as Directors of respondent no.5 Society. The Board of Directors of 2 the respondent no.5 Society consists of in all 23 Directors and the Body elected in the last election is still holding the charge. It is submitted that in the present petition, the basic issue is whether the approval granted to the re-organization of the sugarcane production constituencies as resolved in the General Body meeting held on 30.7.2008 in view of Clause 29 of the Bye-Laws the Society by the Regional Deputy Director (Sugar), Amravati is sustainable in law. In order to decide this aspect, it is necessary to consider the following undisputed facts : As per Clause 29 of the Bye-laws of the respondent no.5 Society, agriculturists cultivating sugarcane are required to elect fifteen Directors. It is also not in dispute that all the villages, which come within the area of operation of respondent no.5 Society will form one group. The General Body has a power in view of Clause 29 of the bye-laws to divide the said group into five groups and from each group, three Directors will be elected. It is not in dispute that the procedure stipulated in Clause 29 of 3 the bye-laws at no point of time is either modified, changed or altered till this date. It is brought to the notice of this Court that total number of villages, which come within the area of operation of respondent no.5 Society, is 340 and as per Clause 8 of the report dated 18.12.2002 submitted to the Collector, Yavatmal by the respondent no.3, every group as far as possible should have equal number of members/voters. The reorganization of the Constituencies done by the General Body of the respondent no.5 Society in view of Clause 29 of the bye-laws in the meeting held on 30.7.2008 is as follows : Sr. No. Name of Constituency Number of Voters 1) Pusad Constituency 2564 2) Umarkhed Constituency 2620 3) Dhanaki Constituency 2460 4) Mahagaon Constituency 2505 5) Hadgaon Constituency 2684 Total Constituency 12833 4 The above reorganization of the sugarcane production constituencies is approved by the Regional Deputy Director (Sugar), Amravati. The petitioners submitted representation against this action to the respondent no.2, who has rejected the same vide impugned order dated 1.4.2010 on the ground that the representation submitted by the petitioners was not based on the bye-laws of the respondent no.5 Society. Shri Parchure, learned Counsel for the petitioners, though canvassed grievance about the resolution dated 30.7.2008 passed by the General Body of the respondent no.5 Society whereby share capital was raised from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/- and also tried to canvass that the subsequent change in the bye-laws is not as per the procedure applicable in this regard, however, no specific ground or averment in this regard is made in the petition nor there is any prayer made in the petition on the basis thereof. The issue involved in the present petition is in respect of grant of approval to the re-organization of Constituencies as well as rejection of the representation of the 5 petitioners. We have considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel and perused Clause 29 of the bye-laws as well as impugned orders dated 8.1.2010 and 1.4.2010 passed by the competent Authorities. It is not at all in dispute that in view of Clause 29 of the bye-laws of the respondent no.5 Society, General Body is competent to reorganize the sugarcane production constituencies. It is also not in dispute that as per the said Clause, 15 Directors are required to be elected. In the instant case, all the villages, which came within the area of operation of the respondent no.5 Society formed one group and in view of power vested in the General Body of the respondent no.5 Society, it was bifurcated into five groups and three Directors are required to be elected from each group. The General Body vide Resolution dated 30.7.2008 reorganized the Constituencies in five groups keeping in view that number of voters in every group to maintain parity with number of voters in the other group. This reorganization of the Constituencies done by the 6 General Body by passing resolution dated 30.7.2008 has been approved by the Regional Deputy Director (Sugar), Amravati. The entire procedure undertaken, in our view, is consistent with the procedure stipulated in Clause 29 of the bye-laws of the respondent no.5 Society and, therefore, was rightly approved by the Regional Deputy Director (Sugar), Amravati. For the similar reasons, the representation of the petitioners also came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 1.4.2010 by the Director (Sugar). The petition is devoid of substance. No case is made out for showing indulgence. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj