1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3429 OF 2009 Ramesh Ramchandra Zanwar ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors. ...Respondents Mr. B.G.Vaidya, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S.N.Bhosle, Advocate for the Respondents 1 to 3 CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 6TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. : 1.Rule. Advocates of both parties are heard. This Writ Petition can be disposed off at the stage of admission itself. 2.The Petitioner who is the Ex-Chairman of the Respondent No.4 Society has challenged the interim order of liquidation passed under Section 102 of the Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 (the Act). Under Section 102(1)(C)(ii) if the Society has ceased working and if the Registrar is of the opinion that the Society ought to be wound up he may issue the interim order directing the Society to be wound up. A copy of the order so passed is required to be communicated in the prescribed 2 manner to the Society calling upon it to submit its explanation to the Registrar within a month of the date of the issue of order and the Registrar on giving an opportunity to the Society to be heard may issue final order under Section 102(2) of the Act. That final order may vacate or confirm the interim order. 3.The communication of the order is to be in the prescribed manner. The manner under which it is prescribed is under Rule 87 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Housing Societies Rules 1961 (the Rules). Under Rule 87 the Registrar is required to call upon the Society to submit its explanation within one month of the issue of the order by registered post, acknowledgment due. 4.The interim order of the Registrar passed under the aforesaid Section 102(1)(C)(ii) of the Act has not been served by registered post. The reply of Respondents 1 to 3 shows that their officer has visited the Registered Office and found that the working of the Society is ceased. Consequently, the action was initiated for liquidation. Based upon such a report the Registrar was required to see whether the Society has ceased its working. The Registrar was required to come to an opinion that the Society ought to be wound up. He would then be required to pass order which is required 3 to be served by registered post within one month of its passing. That is shown not to have been done. 5.It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that some disgruntled members of the Society have filed a false complaint alleging closure of the business of the Society. There have been proceedings for recovery against these members. Awards have been passed and are required to be executed. The learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner has shown the copy of the complaint of some of the members of the Society dated 10th December 2007. Pursuant to awards passed, execution certificates were issued against 4 of such complainants which are annexed as Exhibit-A (colly) to the Petition. 6.The learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner drew my attention to an inquiry held consequent upon the power of the Registrar under Section 88 of the Act to assess damages against delinquent promotors. In that inquiry it has been inter alia observed that the Society office is working. Consequently, the interim order passed itself comes in question. The Liquidator was appointed under the interim order without service of the interim order upon the Society. A final order has come to be passed on 16th January 2008 under Section 103(1) of the Act. Under that order the Liquidator who was appointed is confirmed. The Petitioner is stated to have received 4 the said order on 2nd February 2008 after applying for its certified copy. The Petitioner filed a Revision Application which came to be dismissed and which order is challenged in this Writ Petition along with the final order of liquidation on 16th January 2008. 7.It is seen that the Society was not given an opportunity to show how it was carrying on its business and had not ceased working. The order in revision shows the records and documents produced by the Additional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune Division, Pune upon a complaint dated 10th December 2007 regarding non-functioning of the Society. It is observed that no updated audit is undertaken and that no AGMs of the Society are held. It also shows the visit of the Police Officers on 10th December 2007 and 11th December 2007 and the report filed that the Society office is closed as there was no board thereon. It shows that the notice was sent, but does not show how it was sent or received by the Society in view of the fact that its office was closed. 8.The Society s new address has been shown in the Revision Application No.136/2008 filed by the Society in March 2008. 9.The Registrar of the Societies may be entitled to 5 initiate fresh inquiry to see whether the Society has ceased working at such address. However, since the procedure prescribed by law under Rule 87 of the Societies Act was not followed upon passing of the interim order and the final order came to be passed without giving an opportunity to the Society to show its working, the interim order is required to be set aside. Consequently, the order dismissing the Revision Application also falls foul of law. Hence that order is set aside. 10.Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). 11.The Writ Petition is disposed off accordingly. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)