1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY : NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.67 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6045 OF 2005. Yogi Maithili Sharan Maharaj Sahakari Pat Purvatha Sanstha Maryadit, having its Registered Office at : Sadguru Ward, Old Babulkheda, Nagpur – 27. Through its President. .. APPELLANT . // VERSUS // 1. State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Department of Cooperation and Textile, Mantralaya Extension, Fort, Mumbai – 400 032. 2. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur City -II, Kalbande Bhavan, Krida Chowk, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur. 3. Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Dhanwate Chambers, Sitabuldi, Nagpur. 4. Shri Ramesh S/o. Deoraoji Kherde, Aged adult, R/o. Sainagar, 2 Nagpur – 440 027. .... RESPONDENTS. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri A.M.Gordey, Advocate for Appellant. Shri K.S. Dhote, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Anand Parchure, Advocate for Respondent No.4. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: K.J.ROHEE AND R.C.CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : MARCH 14, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : ( Per Chavan, J. ) 1. This appeal is directed against order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No.6045 of 2005 filed by the appellant. 2. The appellant Co-operative Credit Society had withheld certain deposits standing in the name of respondent No.4 on the ground that the amounts in deposit in fact belonged to appellant's employee, one Gopal, who has been suspended for misappropriation. Respondent No.4 is brother of said Gopal. Respondent No.4 made a complaint to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who by his letter dated 17th May, 2005 directed the appellant to refund the amount 3 deposited by respondent No.4 Ramesh. This order was challenged by the appellant credit society by filing Revision No.789 of 2005 before the Divisional Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies who rejected the revision application by order dated 10.10.2005 and confirmed the order dated 17.05.2005 issued by the Deputy Registrar. Aggrieved thereby, the society filed writ petition seeking to have orders dated 17.05.2005 and 10.10.2005, passed respectively by the Deputy Registrar and Divisional Joint Registrar, quashed and set aside. The writ petition was dismissed by the impugned order. 3. We have heard learned Advocate Shri A.M.Gordey for the appellant, learned Advocate Shri Anand Parchure for respondent No.4 and learned A.G.P. Shri K.S. Dhote for respondents No.1 to 3. 4. The impugned order shows that it was stated on behalf of the appellant Co-operative Credit Society that it had already filed dispute under Section 91 of the Co-operative Societies Act before the Co-operative Court and was making attempt to have the amount in the account attached. The learned single Judge held that the appellant 4 society did not secure any order of attachment and, therefore, could not refuse to allow withdrawal of the amount standing in the account of respondent No.4. The learned single Judge observed that though respondent No.2 did not have jurisdiction to issue such directions, he was not inclined to examine legality or otherwise of such exercise of respondent No.2 since the action by the petitioner society was found to be unjustified. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant had a serious grievance about this conclusion drawn by the learned single Judge. He submitted that if respondent No.2 did not have jurisdiction to issue directions dated 17th May, 2005, howsoever laudable may be the object behind such direction, it could not be sustained. He submitted that a writ Court may refuse to interfere in an order under challenge, if the order depicted a view which could be reasonably taken by an authority having jurisdiction. However, when the authority lacked jurisdiction, such an order would be non-est and could not be left undisturbed by the writ Court merely because it seemed to the Court to be proper. He submitted that when law prescribes a forum and a procedure for 5 redressal of every grievance, the aggrieved party must approach such forum and follow the prescribed procedure. 6. Learned Advocate Shri Parchure for respondent No.4 submitted that under Section 79 of the Co-operative Societies Act, the Registrar has the power to enforce performance of obligations by the societies. Though the title of the section does give an impression that the Registrar may have power to enforce obligations of the society towards, say account holders, a look at the section itself would dispel such an impression. Section 79 empowers the Registrar to direct the society to keep proper books of accounts, to furnish such statements and returns, to produce records as the Registrar may require from time to time and to take action as may be required under the Act within the prescribed time. Unless it is shown that under some Section of the Act, the society was obliged to pay to respondent No.4 the amount in deposit, there would be no occasion for the Registrar to invoke his powers under Section 79 of the Act. In fact, the society too has realised that it is required to seek orders from the Co-operative Court, where the dispute is already pending, for the attachment of the 6 account in question. Respondent No.4 had neither invoked any specific jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar nor had Deputy Registrar indicated -as to what power he was exercising. In view of this, since the orders of the Deputy Registrar on 17th May, 2005 confirmed upon the revision by the Joint Registrar of 10th October, 2005 are entirely without jurisdiction, they could not have been upheld by the learned single Judge. 7. The appellant may, seek appropriate orders from the Co- operative Court where a lis is pending and respect verdict of the Court rather than arrogate to itself the power to retain the account holder's amount in deposit. Respondent No.4 would also be at liberty to approach the Co-operative Court where the lis is pending to seek suitable orders in relation to his deposit, or seek such other remedy as may be legally available to him. 8. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained. The appeal is therefore, allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and so are orders dated 7 17th May, 2005 and 10th October, 2005, which were impugned in the petition. JUDGE JUDGE RR..