(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10227 OF 2010 Sadguru Gangagir Maharaj Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Vyavsayik Sanstha Ltd., Kelwad (Bk.), Taluka : Rahata, District : Ahmednagar, Through its Chairman and delegate, Shri Bhikaji Ramchandra Ghorpade, Age : 61 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Kelwad (Bk.), Taluka : Rahata, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Cooperation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Collector, Ahmednagar, District : Ahmednagar. 3. The District Deputy Registrar (Milk), Ahmednagar, District : Ahmednagar. 4. Shivaji s/o. Annasaheb Gadhawe, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Ranjangaon (Kd.), Taluka : Rahata, District : Ahmednagar. .. Respondents. (2) ....................... Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. Mr. S.S. Shete, Advocate, for respondent no.4. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 11TH JANUARY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. Petition is to be disposed of finally, as the name of the petitioner / Society has been deleted from voters' list. The final voters' list has been published on 14-10-2010. It is admitted position, that the election programme of the Specified Cooperative Society is still to be published and Government has extended the time for holding election. Challenge thereto is being considered by the Division Bench of this Court. (3) 3. Mr. V.D. Hon, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, points out that the alleged order dated 18-1-2006, canceling registration of the petitioner / Society has come to the knowledge of the Society, for the first time, when its copy came to be filed along with reply affidavit before this Court. According to him, the order was never served upon the petitioner and the petitioner / Society has continued to function, namely, collecting milk every day, operating bank account, etc. He further states that the elections to Managing Committee of the Society have also been held in accordance with law and the accounts of Society have also been audited by the Government Auditor. 4. Mr. D.R. Korde, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3, on the other hand, relies on the reply affidavit, to urge that the show cause notice was served upon the petitioner after due verification, reply thereto was obtained and after hearing representatives of the petitioner / Society, order dated 18-1-2006, canceling registration, came to be passed. He relies upon the statements made in the said order dated 18-1-2006 to substantiate his contentions. 5. Mr. S.S. Shete, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.4 / objector, states that the respondent no.4 / (4) objector had applied to competent authority under Right to Information Act and raised objection about the status of the petitioner / Society on the strength of that information. According to him, the petitioner / Society is defunct and already its registration is cancelled. 6. In reply, Mr. Hon, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has invited attention to affidavit in rejoinder filed by the petitioner, and urged that no reply thereto has been filed. He is relying upon the documents filed along with the affidavit in rejoinder, to contend that the Collector while passing the order of canceling registration of the petitioner / Society, has not assigned any reasons and has accepted the statement of cancellation of registration as final. Thus, according to him, there is non- application of mind. 7. After hearing the respective Counsel appearing for the parties, I find that a disputed question, whether petitioner / Society is still functioning or has ceased to function since 2003, as alleged, arises for determination. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner / Society was registered in November 1988 and in survey, it was noticed that it had ceased to function since 2003. It was given a notice under Section 21 on 16-12-2004 and its reply was called for by 24-12-2004. The (5) notice was also published in daily newspaper. The order mentions that representatives of the petitioner / Society appeared before the competent authority and submitted their reply in writing and also made oral submissions. The impugned order appears to have been passed after considering that reply and say. Copy of that order also appears to have been forwarded to Ahmednagar District Central Cooperative Bank, with a direction to proceed further in accordance with the provisions of Section 110 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. 8. What steps were taken after 18-1-2006, either by the Department or by the District Central Cooperative Bank, is not apparent. It is also clear that such issue could not have been decided by the Collector without looking into all the material and by treating the order of cancellation of registration itself as final and determinative. 9. Here, as the election programme is yet not declared, the respondent no.2 / Collector can still be directed to hear the petitioner and the respondent no.4 in the light of the material produced before this Court and in the light of such other material as the respondent no.4, the petitioner and the Cooperative Department may produce before him. (6) 10. In the result, petition is allowed. (i) The respondent no.2 / Collector shall attempt to find out the position of working of the petitioner / Society after 18-1-2006. (ii) Only to enable the respondent no.2 / Collector to undertake that exercise, the impugned order dated 22-10-2010, deleting the name of the petitioner from voters' list, is quashed and set aside. The Collector shall hear the parties and take a fresh decision in the matter, as early as possible, and in any case, within a period of four weeks from today. (iii) Parties are directed to appear before the respondent no.2 / Collector on 18th January 2011 and to abide by his further instructions in the matter. (iv) It is made clear that the observations made by this Court are only to indicate necessity of remand and shall not influence the Collector while deciding controversy in the matter. 11. Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (7) 12. Certified Copy expedited. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp10227