RAJENDRA PRATAPRAO MANE & ORS. versus SADASHIVRAO MANDALIK K.T.S.S.K. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 5 S.C.R. 131 · Decided: 22-03-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 5 S.C.R. 131 
RAJENDRA PRATAPRAO MANE & ORS. 
v. 
SADASHIVRAO MANDALIK K.T.S.S.K. LTD. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2990-2991 of 2012) 
MARCH 22, 2012 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
Co-operative Societies: 
A 
B 
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - s. 152 - c 
Rules of Business - r. 6-A - Interpretation of - Statutory appeals 
filed before the State u/s. 152 - Competency of the Secretary 
of the Department to hear the appeals - On facts, controversy 
with regard to disqualification of 6617 voters found ineligible 
to be members of Sugarcane Factory by the regional Joint 0 
Director - Appeals filed before the State Government uls. 152 
- Due to a/legations of bias, Minister for Co-operation 
transferred the cases to the Secretary, Department of Co-
operation - Writ petition - High Court holding- that the said 
power contained in r. 6-A would have to be exercised by the 
E 
Chief Minister since the appeals were already pending before 
the State Government - Interference with - Held: Not called 
for - r. 6-A does not contemplate the functions of a Minister 
being discharged by the Secretary of the Department or any 
other officer for that matter - Order passed by the Single 
Judge of the High Court was a pragmatic attempt to ensure 
F 
that the elections were duly held and the same was within the 
parameters of r. 6-A, which indicates that if the Chief Minister 
was unable to discharge his functions for the reasons 
indicated, he could direct any other Minister to discharge all 
or any of his functions during his absence - Likewise, if any 
G 
Minister was unable to discharge his functions, the Chief 
Minister could direct any other Minister to discharge all or any 
of the functions of the Minister during the absence of the said 
Minister. 
131 
H 
132 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Appellants filed an application before the 
Commissioner of Sugar alleging that respondent Sugar 
Factory had enrolled persons who did not fulfill the 
required criteria and were ineligible from becoming 
members of the factory. The Commissioner or his 
B subordinates did not take any action. The appellants 
then filed a writ petition. The High Court ordered for an 
inquiry and submission of report. The Regional Joint 
Director (Sugar) found that 6617 persons did not satisfy 
the required criteria to become members of the 
c respondent sugar factory and passed an order under 
Section 11 read with Section 11 A of the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960. Thereafter, the respondent 
sugar factory and several of the members who were held 
to be ineligible from becoming members filed appeals 
0 
before the State under Section 152 of the Act. Due to 
allegations of bias, Minister for Co-operation transferred 
the cases to the Secretary, Department of Co-operation. 
The respondent raised an objection to the same and also 
raised the said objection in the writ petition. The High 
Court held that the power contained in r. 6-A would have 
E to be exercised· by the Chief Minister since the appeals 
were already pending before the State Government and 
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 
F Minister for Co-operation. Thus, the instant appeals were 
filed. 
Disposing of the appeals with directions, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1 Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 who are likely 
to be affected by the order, should have been given 
notice before the impugned order was passed. Such 
being the position, the normal course would have been 
to remand the matter to the High Court for a fresh 
decision after hearing the appellants but nothing fruitful 
H 
RAJENDRA PRATAPRAO MANE v. SADASHIVRAO 133 . 
MANDALIK K.T.S.S.K. LTD. 
would materialize if such an order was passed in view of A 
the reasoning of the judge while making the impugned 
order. On the legal aspect of the question regarding the 
competence of the Secretary of the Department to hear 
the appeals in the light of Rule 6-A of the Rules of 
Business, the counsel for the appellant is heard. Any 
B 
further hearing before the High Court on the said 
question would only amount to duplication and waste of 
judicial time. [Para 16) [139-C-F] 
1.2 The order passed by the Single Judge of the High 
C 
Court was a pragmatic attempt by the High Court to 
ensure that the elections to the Board of Directors of the 
Karkhana were duly held and the same was w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.