SSK/971 1 WP/7408.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7408 OF 2011 Deshbhakta Ratnappanna Kumbhar Panchganga Sahakari Sakhar Karkhan Mydt. ....Petitioner Versus Shri Ramesh Bhupal Chowgule & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni i/b. Mr. Amit B. Borkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N. B. Patil, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, AGP for respondent no.5. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 26th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 4th August, 2011 passed by respondent no.5 whereby one Advocate- D. B. Galatge was appointed as an Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 84(4) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. 3. The Annual General Meeting of the petitioner-Society was held on 1st August, 2011 in pursuance of the notice dated 12th July, 2011. SSK/971 2 WP/7408.11 Under Resolution No.9, it was resolved to lease out the petitioner’s factory to private limited company. 4. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 by filing dispute on 30th July, 2011 challenged the agenda of the meeting dated 12th July, 2011. In the alternative, proposed resolution was also challenged. As stated above, the 5th respondent in exercise of his powers under Section 84(4) of the Multi- State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 referred the matter to the arbitrator. 5. The petitioner had filed caveat before respondent no.5. Despite this, the impugned order is passed without hearing the petitioner. By virtue of Clause 5 of Section 84 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are made applicable to all arbitration under the Act. In that view of the matter, respondent no.5 becomes quasi judicial officer, and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been heard. Even otherwise also, it is settled law that principles of natural justice are required to be followed by the administrative authority, unless they are specifically excluded. Perusal of the provisions of Section 84 of the said Act, does not reveal any such exclusion. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set-aside with direction to respondent no.5 to pass appropriate order after hearing both petitioner and respondents. The SSK/971 3 WP/7408.11 petition is, accordingly, disposed of by passing the following order: 1. The impugned order is quashed and set-aside and the matter is remanded to respondent no.5. 2. Respondent no.5 shall pass appropriate order under Section 84 of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 after hearing the concerned parties, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible and within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 3. It is made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the matter and all points are expressly kept open to be agitated before respondent no.5. 4. The petitioner and respondent nos. 1 to 3 to remain present before respondent no.5 on 29th September, 2011 at 11.00 a.m.. (RANJIT MORE, J.)