1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1037 of 2010 1. Anil s/o Anandrao Jadhav, Age 41 years, Occu: Service, r/o. Virangul, Prabhau Ramchandra Dhule Road, Chalisgaon, Dist.Jalgaon. 2. Ashok Fakirarao Wabale, Age 52 years, Occu: Agri., r/o Mundkheda, Tq. Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. (3. Rajendra Nimbaji Deshmukh, Age 48 years, Occ: Agri., r/o. Mehunbare Tq.Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon.) (No.3 deleted as per leave granted by Hon'ble Court on 28/9/2010) ...PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, (Through its Secretary, Co-Operation Department Mantralaya, Mumbai-32) 2. The Commissioner, Dairy Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3. Divisional Deputy Registrar, Milk Nashik, Trambak Road, Nashik. 2 4. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Milk, Jalgaon, Dist.Jalgaon. 5. The Chalisgaon Taluka Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Chalisgaon Dist. Jalgaon, Through its Chairman, Mahendrasing Nimba Pawar, Age 53 years, Occu: Agri., 6. Arvind s/o Govind Patil, Age 52 years, Occu. Service, Working as a Managing Director, of the respondent No.5 Sangh. 7. Sau.Harsha Kamlesh Rajput, Age 25 years, Occu. Household, r/o Patna Devi Road, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 8. Nilesh s/o Mansing Rajput, Age 33 years, Occu. Agri. & Business, r/o Patna Devi Road, Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.D.B.Thoke Patil, Adv., for the petitioner. Mrs. S.D.Shelke, AGP, for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr.R.T.Nagargoje, Adv., for respondent no.5. Mr. V.D.Salunke, Adv., for respondent no.6. Mr.G.D.Kale, Adv., for respondent nos. 7 & 8. Mr.P.R.Patil, Adv., for respondent no.7. ... CORAM K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 28/9/2010 *** 3 COURT'S ORDER: 1. Mr.D.B.Thoke Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner, under Purshis informs, petitioner no.3 Rajendra Limbaji Deshmukh, does not want to prosecute the writ petition. Consequently, name of petitioner no.3 is to be deleted forthwith. 2. Heard finally. The petitioners, members of managing committee of Chalisgaon Taluka Doodh Utpadak Sangh (respondent no.5) have questioned the orders dt.28th Jan.,2010, passed by the Divisional Deputy Registrar (Milk Scheme), Nashik-Trimbak Road, Nashik, (Respondent No.3) and also sought quashing of the sale deed dt.30th Jan.,2010, executed by respondent no.5 in favour of respondent nos. 7 and 8. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is, the property of respondent no.5, which is located in a prime place, having a good yield of upward market price, is surreptitiously transferred by clandestine preparation of the documents in favour of respondent nos. 7 and 8. According to him, the formalities of causing publication in a widely circulated newspapers are put to shelves as the publication of advertisement in the newspaper "Raghunandan" has a very limited circulation of around 2000 copies and it could 4 not be made known to the public or intending purchaser. Otherwise, the property would have fetched handsome price. The petitioner also canvassed, there was no need for respondent no.5 to sell the property as the price of the milk was to be paid to the milk supplier from the sale proceeds of the milk in which there was certainly mismanagement and/or misappropriation. 4. Both the learned Counsel minutely took me through the record, to canvass individual point. The managing Director, respondent no.6, Mr.Arvind s/o Govind Patil has supported the cause of the petitioners stating that the activity of sale of the property, is not in good spirit. He accepts that, he is at cross terms with respondent no.5 and he got his employment functioning with the Sangh by virtue of the orders of the competent Court. The Chairman of respondent no.5 supported the action. 5. The purchasers, respondent nos. 7 and 8, canvassed that it was not a sale transaction in close quarters of the Sangh (respondent no.5) premises but, pursuant to the advertisements, offers were collected by the Sangh in sealed tenders, which were opened in presence of the prospective bidders/purchasers, as could be seen, referred at page no.134. Mr.Patil, learned Counsel, informs that these persons are not from 5 his family or known to him but they have their independent status in the society. Two of the bidders deal in Milk - Dairy activities. The other bidder is a known jeweller; one of the bidder is a businessman. Mr.Patil, learned Counsel, canvassed, had there been a clandestine transaction, these independent persons could not have dared to participate in the bid process. 6. On the point of procuring less price to the property in the year 2004, the offer for sale of one part of the property was for Rs.3011 sq.mts. and now, by virtue of the sale transaction or offers, the property is sold at around 2700 per sq.mt. Mr.Patil, learned Counsel, informs, this was possible because everybody knew in the vicinity that the property of the Sangh (Respondent No.5) is under cloud owing to inter se disputes between Management and nobody could invite a risk of investing money and getting it blocked and his face burnt in such inter se controversies between the office bearers of the Sangh. I find substance in these submissions. Normally, nobody will jump financial death in such mess of events. 7. The petitioner though at all the stages has objected to the disposal of the two properties, however, he could not control the decision taken in the general body meeting dt. 6 14.11.2008, though there was earlier objection in the managing committee meeting dt.30.10.2008. Since there was a general body resolution to dispose of the property, where price of Rs.50 lacs was estimated by the General Body and the Sangh, such decision was taken to meet the urgent requirement of respondent no.5 Sangh. 8. Inter se relations of the purchasers by itself will not mitigate chances of their purchasing the property or benefits thereof need not be questioned. The petitioners consciously allowed the Resolution to take positive effect and now are yelling with certain calculations. The objections were not raised to challenge the General Body Resolution passed virtually unanimously. 9. The publication in the newspaper though apparently was in a condensed and restricted circulation, however, it could not be gathered that the public at large was not aware. If the petitioner, indeed, was more concerned that the property was not fetching good price, there was no injunction for him to participate or to procure such bidders to activate high price for the property under auction. This attitude also demonstrates that the petitioner wanted to take advantage of the situation and keep the ball rolling of the hanging sword in the smooth 7 affairs of the Sangh. 10. The long drawn resolutions dt.14.8.2006 (page No.95) indicate that the two petitioners were present and were quite aware of the situation. Identically, in the subsequent resolution also, they were party. On 14.2.2008, a resolution was taken authorizing the chairman and the accountant to sign the cheques and complete the transactions. Petitioner informs that he was not present in such meeting dt14.2.2008. But he certainly cannot plead ignorance of it. 11. The ready reckoner value of the property was resolved and valuation of the property was indicating to be Rs.18,33,656/- and Rs. 22,08,856/-. Apart from that, there is a private survey carried which is also in tune to the valuation referred here-in-above. The knocking of the bid in favour of respondent nos. 7 and 8, was more than the figures quoted here-in-above as Plot No.40/15 admeasuring 684.2 sq.mts. was sold for Rs.18,57,603/- while plot No.14/16 admeasuring 824.2 sq.mts. was sold for Rs. 22,34,406/-. Apart from these charges, it is clear, the purchasers were required to shell out additional costs towards stamp duty and even registration charges. The stamp duty and also sale deed, as is apparent, for the first 8 transaction is Rs.1,11,500/- while for the second transaction is Rs.1,34,100/-. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, during the reply submissions indicated that though he has not stated but the property is worth Rs.one crore and if it is put in re- auction, the purchasers can participate and also ensure smooth sale of the property. 13. Though the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner are cozy and indicative of a whistle blower, however, difficult to digest. This is more so as the conduct of the petitioners indicates that they allowed the situation to ripe for all the events, kept themselves in slumber and, thereafter, challenged the order of respondent no.3, without challenging earlier resolutions or seeking proper declaration. The petitioner has certainly raised several disputed questions of facts which in the jurisdiction of the writ, need not be reckoned and canvassed and also addressed. Taking overall view of the matter, I find that the said transaction of the two plots, referred above, in favour of respondent nos. 7 and 8 could not be said to be a surreptitious, illegal transaction or detrimental to the benefit of the Sangh, respondent no.5. 9 14. During the course of submissions, Mr.Patil, learned Counsel and Mr.Kale, learned Counsel, in instructions from their clients, who are present in the Court, volition to additional deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs.five lacs) each by respondent nos. 7 and 8 with respondent no.5 Sangh, within a period of two months. 15. This offer is certainly to resolve the controversy and to have an end to the ongoing feud and clash. I find that this will be adding to the price and expenses which the respondents have already parted with. Now, there could not be any incendiary from petitioners. 16. Taking survey of above facts, the writ petition lacks merits, dismissed, however, respondent nos. 7 and 8, in tune with their assurances, to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs.five lacs), each, with respondent no.5 Sangh, within a period of two months. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/1037-10wp