bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4743 OF 1999 PETITION NO. 4743 OF 1999 PETITION NO. 4743 OF 1999 Smt.Sugandha Suresh Patil & anr. ... Petitioners v/s The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Dairy), Kolhapur & ors. ... Respondents Mr.V.B.Rajure for the petitioners. Mr.Asif Patel, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.M.V.Shingade i/by G.N.Salunke for the Resp.No.4. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 17TH NOVEMBER, 2008 17TH NOVEMBER, 2008 17TH NOVEMBER, 2008 ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT JUDGMENT JUDGMENT: 1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Dairy) on 3.5.1999 in Revision Application No.8 of 1999. 2. Petitioner No.2 Society (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner Society") is a society run by women of which petitioner No.1 is the Chief Promoter. Permission was granted to the petitioner Society on 23.9.1998 to open a bank account and to collect milk. The petitioner Society therefore started functioning in village 2 Narewadi as a milk collecting society. The Kolhapur District Co-operative Dairy Utpadak Sangh Limited, Kolhapur, started accepting milk from the petitioner society from 29.9.1998. The collection of milk by the petitioner Society between 1.10.1998 to 20.10.1998 was about 92.4 litres per day. 3. Aggrieved by the decision to permit the petitioner society to collect milk in Narewadi, respondent No.4 society filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent i.e. the Regional Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Dairy), under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), being Appeal No.26 of 1998. 4. The main contention raised in the appeal was that the respondent No.4 Society was registered earlier for collecting milk in Narewadi. It was contended that the petitioner Society could not be permitted to collect milk when the collection in the village by the respondent No.4 Society was less than 75 litres per day. It was contended that no other society should be permitted to be registered as it prejudicially affected the respondent No.4 Society. The Regional Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, granted a stay to the order dated 23.9.1998 permitting the petitioner society 3 to collect milk from the villagers. 5. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioners filed Revision Application No.8 of 1999 under Section 154 of the Act. The Joint Registrar stayed the order impugned in the revision on 13.11.1998. It appears that, a sitting M.L.A. complained to the Minister for Dairy Development that the permission to open a bank account and for collection of milk was obtained by the petitioner society by fraud. A report was directed to be submitted by the Hon’ble Minister. A stay was granted to the impugned order till then. On 25.11.1998, the Deputy Secretary again wrote to the respondent No.3 calling upon him to vacate the order dated 13.11.1998. 6. Appeal No.26 of 1998 filed by the 4th respondent Society was allowed by the Regional Deputy Registrar on 21.1.1999 thereby setting aside the permission granted to the petitioner society for collection of milk. The revision application filed by the petitioners from that order was dismissed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Hence this petition. 7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner society is the first women’s society in the village and, therefore, the collection of 300 litres 4 of milk a day, or potentially collecting 250 litres of milk a day, was not a condition precedent for Registration of the Society. It is contended that the Government Resolution issued on 4.9.1998 stipulates that when a women’s society is to be registered for the first time in the village, it is to be registered as a "First Society" on a priority basis. It is then submitted that the criteria contained in Clause 3 of the Government Resolution would not be applicable to the petitioner society as admittedly it was only in 1991 that the Government Resolution was amended to stipulate that the collection of milk in the village by a women’s society should be 300 litres per day or potentially 250 litres per day. 8. The learned A.G.P. has produced an affidavit dated 4.1.2000 wherein the criterion of the potential collection of 250 litres of milk in the village has been mentioned. However, this Government Resolution is not applicable to the present case as the application of the petitioners has been filed in 1998. Since there was no such condition in 1998, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 ought to have granted the permission sought by the petitioners and registered petitioner No.2 as a women’s society for collection of milk, giving it a permission to collect milk in Narewadi. The existence of the petitioner 5 society cannot prejudicially affect the respondent No.4 society as claimed by the latter. 9. Assuming the milk collection of the respondent No.4 society is affected, the Government Resolution of 1998 itself permits the registration of the women’s society for collection of milk on a priority basis, by considering it as a "First Society". To effectively implement the Government Resolution, Clauses 3 and 5 must be read harmoniously. It would have to be held that permission must be given to collect milk to a women’s society, irrespective of the quantum of milk collected in view of the Government Resolution of 1998. 10. Writ petition allowed. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.