LexEVEREST APARTMENTS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
r ' A EVEREST APARTMENTS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING B c .D E F G H SOCIETY LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. January 18, 1966 [K. SUBBA RAO, M. HIDAYATULLAH AND R. S. BACHAWAT JJ.j Maharashtra Co--0perative Societies Act, 1960 (24 of 1961), ss. 23(2), 154-0rders of Deputy Registrar under s. 23(2)-Whether final-State Government whether has revisional jurisdiction over 'then1 under s. 154- Parties whether can invoke revisional jurisdiction. The appellant was a registered co-operative Housing Society, regi& tered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. S, res- pondent no. 4, applied for membership of the society but this was retu.ed. He appealed under s. 23(2) of the Act to the Deputy Registrar· Co-operative Societies who decided in bjs favour. The appellant filed an application before the State Government for revision purporting to be under s. 154 of the Act which was rejected on the ground that Govern- ment bad no revisional jurisdiction against orders under s. 23(3). The appellant then went to the High C.Ourt under Arts. 226 and 227 and failing there also came to this Court by special leave. The questions that fell to be decided were. (i) Is the finality under s. 23(3) subject to s. 154 and (ii) Has a party a right to move the State Government under •. 154? HELD : (i) There is no doubt that s. 154 is potential but not com- pulsive. Power is reposed in Government to intervene to do justice when occasion demands it and of the occasion for its exercise Government is made sole judge. This power can be exercised in all cases except in a case in which a similar power has already been exercised by the Tribunal under s. 149(9) of the Act. The exception was considered necessary because the legality or propriety of an order having been considered once,. it would be an act of superetogation to consider the matter twice. It follows, thetefore, that Government can exercise its powers under s. 154 in all cases with one exception only, and that the finality of the order under s. 23(3) does not restrict the exercise of the power. The word •final' in this context means that the order is not subject to an ordinary appeal or revision but it does not touch the special power legislatively conferred on Government. The Government was in error in considering that .it had no jurisdiction in this case for it obviously had. [371 B-DJ Conunissioner of Income-tax West Punjab v. The Trii.J-ruze Trust, Lahore, ( 1948) 16 l.T.R. 214 (P.C.) and Sheffield Corporation v. Luxford, [1929] 2 K.B. 180, refecred to. (ii) The fact that s. 154 does not expressly permit a party to invoke the revision jurisdiction under that section does not mean that a party is prohibited from moving the Government. But as Government is not compelled to take action, unless it thinks fit the party who moves the Government cannot claim that he has a right of appeal or revision. On the other hand Government should welcome such applications because they draw its attention to cases in some of which it may be interested to intervene. [371 FJ 366 . SUPREME COUllT REPORTS I 1966] 3 S.C.R. Sheffield Corporation v. Lu.tford, (1929] 2 K.B. 180, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. I of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the order dated June 30, 1965 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No. 1027 of 1965. S. V. G11p1e, Solici1or-Cie11eral and N. N. Keswani, for the ap- pellant. JViren De, Additional So/icitor-Ge11eral and B. R. G. K. Achar, for respondent No. I. The judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullab, J, In this appeal by special leave we are not concerned with the merits of the controversy between the appellant and the fourth respondent, who are the contesting parties, because bnly two short questions of law arise for our decision. The appe- llant is a registered co-operative Housing Society, registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (XXIV of 1961 ). The Society was prori1oted by two individuals for the construction of a block of flats in Bombay. Shivdasani (respodent 4) claims to we paid the entrance fee, share money and other demands and cilmplaints that his membership was wrongly rejected by the Society. The Society denies these statements and the claim. We arc not concerned with the details of this dispute. What we are concerned with is this: On being informed of the rejection of his application for mem
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.