7257 of 2011, and the companynected Writ Petition No.10133 of 2011, were disposed of on a statement made by the Government Pleader that the inquiry into the companyplaint by the appellants would be companypleted within 15th February, 2012.
The learned Judge was of the view that the said power companytained in Rule 6 A would have to be exercised by the Chief Minister.
The present appeals have been filed by the Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 on various grounds.
A few facts are required to be set out in order to appreciate the question which has been raised in these appeals.
On 27th September, 2011, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court passed an order on the statement made by the Regional Joint Director Sugar , Kolhapur, to the effect that an inquiry team would look into the allegations made by the appellant.
The same objection was raised in the writ petitions also.
According to the said Rules of Business, statutory appeals filed under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as the M.C.S. Act, 1960, are to be heard by the Minister in charge of the companycerned Department.
In the above mentioned appeals assigned for hearing to the Secretary, Cooperation Department, an objection was raised on behalf of the Respondent No.2 that neither under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and Rules, number under the provisions of the Rules of Business of the Government of Maharashtra, was the Secretary of the Department entitled to hear the appeals and that it was only the Minister in charge of the Department who companyld do so.
On 22nd February, 2012, the said appeals were listed for admission and interim orders before the Minister for Cooperation, State of Maharashtra, but in view of the allegations of bias made against him in W.P.No.1685 of 2012, the Minister recused himself from hearing the appeals and transferred the cases to the Secretary, Department of Cooperation, for hearing and disposal.
The Division Bench directed that the inquiry be companypleted within the stipulated time and the report be submitted before it.
Immediately, thereafter, the respondent sugar factory and several of the members, who were held to be ineligible from becoming members of the factory, challenged the order passed by the Regional Joint Director Sugar , Kolhapur, by filing appeals before the State of Maharashtra, under Section 152 of the M.C.S. Act, 1960.
The second ground taken for filing the appeals is whether the High Court companyld have directed the Chief Minister of Maharashtra to invoke the Rules of Business in terms of Rules 6 and 6 A thereof and also whether the appeals companyld at all be heard by the Secretary of the Cooperation Department.
The order of the Joint Director Sugar , Kolhapur was also challenged by the respondent sugar factory and some of the persons who were held to be ineligible, numberwithstanding the pendency of their substantive appeals under Section 152 of the Act, challenging the very same order before the State of Maharashtra.
While disposing of the Writ Petitions, the High Court directed that the previous list of voters for election to the Managing Committee of the respondent sugar factory should be published only after the inquiry was companypleted.
Writ Petition No.
On 30th June, 2011, the appellants filed an application before the Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra State, Pune, companyplaining about the unlawful manner in which persons had been enrolled by the respondent Karkhana, despite the fact that they did number fulfill the required criteria and were ineligible from becoming members.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. Leave granted.
The facts of these appeals give rise to an interesting question of law regarding the interpretation of the Rules of Business framed by the Governor of Maharashtra in exercise of powers companyferred under Article 166 2 and 3 of the Constitution of India.
The order of the Division Bench was challenged by the respondent Karkhana by way of S.L.P. C No.28880 of 2011, which was dismissed by this Court and it was also indicated that the inquiry to be companyducted would be one under Section 11 of the M.C.S. Act, 1960.
As the Commissioner, or his subordinates, did number take any action on the application filed by the appellants they filed a writ petition, being W.P. No.7257 of 2011, before the Bombay High Court, for a writ in the nature of Mandamus upon the authorities under the M.C.S. Act, 1960, to companyduct an inquiry into the allegations made by the appellants.
Since, the appeals were already pending before the State Government, the learned Single Judge directed the Chief Minister to either hear the appeals himself or to appoint any other Minister to hear and decide the same by performing the function of the Minister for Cooperation, in relation to the hearing of the above appeals.
The appellants appeared before the Secretary on 24.2.20121, but raised an objection to his jurisdiction to hear a substantive appeals under Section 152 of the M.C.S. Act, 1960.
