1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2167/2010 [LAXMINARAYAN GRUHA NIRMAN SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD ..VS.. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND 5 OTHERS] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M.N. Thengre, advocate for petitioner Shri D.B.Patel, Assistant Government Pleader .for respondent no1. To 3 Shri S.V.Sirpurkar, advocate for respondent no.5 Shri V.N. Morande, advocate for respondent no.6 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 1 st February 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 31.5.2007 r under the provisions of section 102 and 103 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960 for winding up of the society and appointing Shri S.G. Surjuse as Liquidator on the said sanstha. The petitioner also impugns the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur under section 152 of the Act of 1960 on 22.2.2010 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner society against the order passed by the Assistant Registrar. Shri Thengre, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the society was registered for the first time in the year 2007 and without holding any inspection under section 84 of the Act or without making any enquiry under section 83 thereof, the Assistant Registrar, could not have issued the order of winding up of the society and appointing the Liquidator. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was nothing on record to 2 show that the petitioner society had not commenced the working or had ceased to work and therefore, the provisions of section 102 and 103 of the Act could not have been invoked. Shri Patel, the learned Assistant Government Pleader and Shri Sirpurkar and Shri Morande, the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand supported the orders passed by the authorities and submitted that the action had been taken by the Assistant Registrar under the provisions of section 102(1) (c)of the Act of 1960. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the society was not registered in the year 2007 as submitted by the petitioner, but the same was registered on 20.10.2006. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the Assistant Registrar has taken action in pursuance of the Clause(c)of sub-section (1) of section 102 of his own motion and the petitioner was duly heard before the order of winding up of the society and the appointment of the Liquidator was passed by the Assistant Registrar. It is submitted on behalf of the authorities that the Assistant Registrar found on verification that the land shown to have been possessed by the petitioner no.1 society was already sold by the respondent no.6 prior to the registration of the society in the year 2006 and no plot remained to be allotted to the members of the petitioner society and the registration of the society was done in view of the incorrect information supplied by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondents sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned orders, along with the submissions of 3 the respondents, it appears that the winding up order was not passed by the Assistant Registrar under the provisions of section 102(1)(a) of the Act. The Assistant Registrar had found that the condition as to registration and management were not followed by the petitioner no.1 society. It was noticed by the Assistant Registrar after the registration of the society that there were no plots which remained to be allotted to the members of the society and the purpose for which the society was registered, could not be fulfilled. The Assistant Registrar, therefore, invoked the provisions of section 102(1)(c)(iv) of the Act for winding up and appointment of Liquidator. It was found by the Assistant Registrar on a suo motu action that Shri Gargelwar, the Secretary of the Society which was registered in the year 2006 had not supplied the correct information to the authorities and had misled the authorities, which led to the registration of the sanstha. Hence on his own motion the Assistant Registrar took action against the society after he found that the conditions as to registration and management were not fulfilled and it was necessary to wind up the society and appoint a liquidator. The Assistant Registrar on the basis of the case papers produced before him observed that all the plots were sold by the Chief Promoter who was now no more and it was necessary to sort out the dispute between the members to whom the plots were actually sold by the Chief Promoter and the persons who were made members of the sanstha by the petitioner no.1 society. It appears on perusal of both the orders and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties that the order was not passed by 4 the Assistant Registrar under the provisions of section 102(1)(a) of the Act and was passed under the provisions of section 102(1) (c) of the Act. It was therefore, not necessary for the Registrar to make an enquiry under section 83 or inspection under section 84 before winding up of the society. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the society was registered in the year 2007 is also not well founded as it is apparent form the submissions made on behalf of the respondent authorities and the copy of the registration certificate which was produced by the petitioners in the court for perusal that the society was registered on 20.10.2006 i.e. before the impugned order was passed by the Assistant Registrar. Since the orders passed by both the authorities do not suffer from any jurisdictional error, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP