1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 3784/2009 (Vishwasrao Wankhede and another ..vs. Divl. Jt. Registrar, Co-op Soc. +1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or Directions Court's or Judge's Orders. And Registrar's Orders. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI DATED : NOVEMBER 16, 2009 Heard finally with consent of the parties. The petitioner has come up with contention that District Deputy Registrar i.e. respondent No.2 had earlier appointed one Shri Ulhe as Enquiry Officer and that report has been submitted on 17/7/2008 by him. However, on the very same day, ignoring that submission of report, the enquiry was withdrawn from Shri Ulhe and was made over to Shri V.D.Kahalekar. Learned Advocate Shri A.M.Gordey for petitioners by placing reliance upon Section 83 of the Maharashtra Co-operatives Societies Act, 1960, contends that as enquiry was over, said withdrawal is not permissible. He further wants to show that withdrawal of enquiry and appointment of another officer for very same purpose is politically motivated. Learned Advocate Shri P.P. Mahalle for respondent No. 4 – Society states that on 16/7/2008, the petitioners had raised objection to the conduct of enquiry by 2 appointing Shri Ulhe. He points out that petitioner No. 1 and Shri Ulhe were in society together and infact Shri Ulhe was administering for very brief period and alleged illegalities are pointed out by Shri Ulhe during said period and during the period of petitioner No.1. According to him, petitioner No.1 and Shri Ulhe were biased and Shri Ulhe has infact not conducted any independent enquiry. He contends that in such circumstances, the respondent No.2 has rightly withdrawn the enquiry from Shri Ulhe and appointed Shri Kahalekar (respondent No.3) to submit that report. Both the learned counsel, however, state that because of his personal difficulties, Shri Kahalekar has expressed his inability for the same. Thereafter, one Shri Lonare has been appointed to conduct the enquiry. Learned Advocate Shri Mahalle states that Shri Lonare has also completed his enquiry, but because of pending writ petition, report has not been submitted. Learned Advocate Shri Gordey for petitioner is disputing this position. Learned AGP supports the orders as passed. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have perused Sections 83, 87, 88 and 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The report obtained by respondent No.2 in terms of enquiry under Section 83 can be used for some directions or action again society as contemplated under Section 87(1) or for recovery of damages for enquiry under Section 88 and for removal of Committee or members from 3 Managing Committee under Section 78(1) of the said Act. Section 87(2) of the Act permits the society concerned to file an appeal to the State Government, if the society is aggrieved by the directions to it under Sub-section 1 thereof. It is, therefore, obvious that the District Deputy Registrar has to consider the report independently and thereafter has to find out the appropriate course of action. When such course of action is decided, the party against whom the action proceeds also gets an opportunity to show cause as to how action sought to be initiated or initiated is incorrect. It is, therefore, more than clear that if there are two groups in the society making allegations against each other and if there are two reports, respondent No.2 will have benefit of going through both the reports and to judge for himself the correct position and then to decide the correct further course of action. Provisions of Section 83(5) show that respondent No.2 is empowered to withdraw any enquiry from the officer to whom it is entrusted and to hold enquiry either himself or to entrust it to any other person as he deems fit. Advocate Shri Mahalle contends that such an enquiry was not conducted by Shri Ulhe at all. Learned Advocate Shri Gordey has pointed out that Shri Ulhe has after completion of enquiry submitted final report on 17/7/2008 itself to the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Amravati. In view of the discussion above, it is not 4 necessary for this court to record any finding in this respect. The respondent No.2 – District Deputy Registrar shall look into the report of Shri Ulhe and also the report to be submitted by Shri Lonare and thereafter shall proceed to decide the further course of action in accordance with the provisions of Section 87, Section 88 or Section 78 or such other course of action as he deems fit, depending upon his evaluation of the situation. In view of this finding and observations, the grievance of respondents before the Divisional Joint Registrar is already taken care of and grievance of petitioner has also been taken care of. It is, therefore, clarified that order dated 16/3/2009 passed by respondent No.1 shall not come in the way of respondent No.2 in acting further as per directions of this Court, contained above. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE Diwale