DEEPAK ANANDA PATIL versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS

Citation: [2023] 5 S.C.R. 717 · Decided: 04-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
717
   [2023] 5 S.C.R. 717
717
DEEPAK ANANDA PATIL
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS
(Civil Appeal Nos 88-89 of 2023)
JANUARY 04, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.]
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – s.11 –
Complaints filed seeking removal of approximately 2000 members
of the cooperative society (engaged primarily in the production of
sugar), disputing their eligibility in terms of the bye-laws – A total
of 1415 members were directed to be deleted – Correctness of –
Held: Order u/s.11 has serious consequences for the members – An
omnibus order was passed by the Regional Joint Director(Sugar),
preceded by a general notice to show cause which was issued to
the cooperative society – There was no application of mind to the
grounds of ineligibility asserted against each member – Report of
the Committee, constituted to verify the allegations, submitted to the
Regional Joint Director (Sugar) containing findings w.r.t the
eligibility of individual members was not supplied to them or to the
cooperative society – Order u/s.11 operates to oust a particular
individual from the membership of the society – The principles of
natural justice must be observed in relation to each member whose
membership is sought to be ousted – There was a clear breach of
the principles of natural justice – The consequence of ousting such
a large group of members from the membership of a cooperative
society would result in a serious miscarriage of justice unless
individual facts are considered in each case – Though, the High
Court proceeded exclusively on the basis of the submission with
reference to s.11, there were serious objections which were raised
both in the appeal and before the High Court in the pleadings in
regard to the alleged ineligibility of the members – Impugned
judgment of High Court set aside – Order of the Regional Joint
Director (Sugar) and the order of Minister of Cooperation also set
aside – Proceedings restored to the file of the Regional Joint Director
(Sugar) – Directions issued – Principles of Natural Justice –
Administrative Law.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
718
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
Administrative Law – Non-disclosure of relevant information
– Held: An adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any
material unless the person against whom it is sought to be utilized
has been apprised of it and given an opportunity to respond to it –
Principles of Natural Justice.
T. Takano v. Securities and Exchange Board of India
(2022) 8 SCC 162; Managing Director, ECIL,
Hyderabad v B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727 : [1993]
2 Suppl. SCR 576 – relied on.
Natwar Singh v Director of Enforcement (2010) 13 SCC
255 : [2010] 13 SCR 99; Krishna Chandra Tandon v
Union of India AIR 1974 SC 1589 : 1974 (4) SCC
374; Khudiram Das v State of West Bengal (1975) 2
SCC 81 : [1975] 2 SCR 832; Union of India v Mohd.
Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 588 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR
248; 576; State Bank of Patiala v SK Sharma (1996) 3
SCC 364 : [1996] 3 SCR 972; State of Uttar Pradesh v
Ramesh Chandra Mangalik (2002) 3 SCC 443; Kothari
Filaments v Commr. Of Customs (2009) 2 SCC 192 :
[2008] 17 SCR 647 – referred to.
MP Jain & SN Jain’s treatise on Principles of
Administrative Law  – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2022) 8 SCC 162
relied on
Para 18
[2010] 13 SCR 99
referred to
Para 18
1974 (4) SCC 374
referred to
Para 18
[1975] 2 SCR 832
referred to
Para 18
[1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 248
referred to
Para 18
[1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 576
relied on
Para 18
[1996] 3 SCR 972
referred to
Para 18
(2002) 3 SCC 443
referred to
Para 18
[2008] 17 SCR 647
referred to
Para 18
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
719
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.88-89
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2022 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition Nos.4647 and 4609 of 2021.
With
M A Nos.1978-1979 of 2022 in SLP (C) Nos. 20001-20002 of
2022 and SLP (C) Nos.22734-22737 of 2022.
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Maninder Singh, Sr. Advs., Abhikalp Pratap
Singh, Raghav Agrawal, Toshiv Goyal, Dhruv Sharma, Ms. Aadya Yadav,
M/s. Lawyer S. Knit & Co., S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Eeshan D. Khaire,
Tushar Singh, Katubadi Ismail, Advs. for the Appellant.
Tushar Mehta, SG, Kedar Pralhad LAD, Dhawesh Pahuja,
Sandeep Singh, Siddharth Dhamadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande,
Bharat Bagla, Ms. Kirti Dadheech, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Ms. Pracheta
Kar, Aditya Sidhra, Nadeem Afroz, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHA
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.