- (1.) 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 only two short questions of law arise for our decision. The appellant is a registered Co-operative Housing Society, registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (XXIV of 1961). The Society was promoted by two individuals for the construction of a block of flats in Bombay. Shivdasani (respondent 4) claims to have paid the entrance fee, share money and other demands and complains that his membership was wrongly rejected by the Society. The Society denies these statements and the claim. We are 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 membership, Shivdasani filed an appeal under S. 23 (2) of the above Act, which was heard and decided in his favour by the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bombay. The Society filed an application before the State Government for revision purporting to be under S. 154 of the Act. This application was rejected. The Society was intimated this result by the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra (Agriculture and Co-operative Department) and the communication (CAR/1064/426690/C-42, 17th May 1965) was as follows:- "Sir, I am directed to state that following the hearing to you by the Deputy Secretary of this Department on 10th March 1965, in connection with the subject noted above, a note was received in this Department from Shri M. G. Mani, Advocate wherein it was claimed that though an order was final under S. 23 (3) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Government had inherent revisionary powers under S. 154 of the said Act to entertain in such representations against such an order. I am to inform you that the matter has been examined by Government and to state that in such cases orders given under S. 23 (3) are final and Government has no revisional jurisdiction in such a matter. Yours faithfully, Sd./- (D. A. Ekbote), Under Secretary to Government." The Society filed a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the High Court of Bombay which was also rejected (S.C.A. 1027/65, 30th June 1965). The High Court passed a short and laconic order which reads: "Government right in declaring no jurisdiction. It is wrong to say that respondent had withdrawn the application voluntarily. Attitude of the Society unjust. Admittedly the promoters were members of Everest Co. and they wanted Rs. 3,000 from each one for themselves. Societies are not meant for self aggrandizement. No ground to interfere. REJECTED." It is against the last order that the present appeal has been brought and the first question is whether the Government is right in law in declining to interfere because it has "no revisional jurisdiction in such a matter" The answer to this question depends upon the construction of S. 154 of the Act but before we attempt it, we shall say something about the Act and the provisions applicable to this case.
(2.) The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, which replaced the Bombay Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 was passed to provided for the orderly development of the co-operative movement in the State of Maharashtra. It deals, among others, with housing societies, the object of which is to provide their members with dwelling houses. Every society having as its objects the promotion of the economic interests or general welfare of its members, or of the public, in accordance with co-operative principles and which is economically sound may register under the Act. This entitles the societies to obtain certain benefits. The State Government appoints a Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who has numerous powers under the Act, and may appoint one or more persons to assist him and may confer all or any of the power of the Registrar upon them. Chapter II of the Act then deals with registration of societies and all matters connected there with. Chapter III next deals with members and their rights and liabilities. Section 22 in that Chapter lays down who may become a member of a society and by its second sub-section provides: "22. Person who may become member. (1) * * * (2) Where a person is refused admission as a member of a society, the decision (with the reasons therefor) shall be communicated to that person within fifteen days of the date of the decision, or within three months from the date of the application for admission,- whichever is earlier." Section 23 then gives a right of appeal to a member who has been refused admission. It provides: "23. Open membership. (1) No society shall, without sufficient cause, refuse admission to membership to any person duly qualified therefor under the provision of this Act and its by-laws. (2) Any person aggrieved by the decision of a society, refusing him admission to its membership, may appeal to the Registrar. (3) The decision of the Registrar in appeal, shall be final and the Registrar shall communicate his decision to the parties within fifteen days from the date thereof." The appeal of Shivdasani was made under the above section. After the order in appeal was passed by the Registrar, the Society moved the State Government under S. 154 to exercise its powers under that section. It reads: "154. Power of State Government and Registrar to call for proceedings of subordinate officer and to pass orders thereon. The State Government and the Registrar may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of any other matter of any officer subordinate to them, except those referred to in sub-s. (9) of Section 149 for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such officer. If in any case, it appears to the State Government, or the Registrar, that any decision or order proceedings so called for should be modified, annulled or reversed, the State Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, may after giving persons affected thereby an opportunity of being heard pass such order thereon as to it or him may seem just." The State Government held that it had no jurisdiction as orders given under S. 23 (3) were final. Two questions arise here: (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 S. 154
(3.) Mr. Niren De defending the order of the State Government as well as that of the High Court, admits that the State Government has been given a power to call for and examine the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of any other matter of any officer subordinate to it, except those referred to in sub-s 9 of S. 149, and that as the present is not a matter under S. 149 (9) the power could be exercised by Government for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of the order. In other words, he does not contest that the finality stated by S. 23 (3) does not affect the power of the State Government. In making this admission he is clearly right. The Act has provided for appeals in other sections and the decision on appeal is stated to be final. Yet the power of superintendence is given to the State Government in general terms in respect of any inquiry or proceeding with only one exception, namely, the proceedings of the Maharashtra State Tribunal, when the Tribunal calls for and examines the record of any proceeding in which an appeal lies to it, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed. By mentioning one specific exception to the general power, the Act has indicated an intention to include every other inquiry or proceeding within the action by Government as contemplated by S. 154. Mr. De, however, contends, firstly, that the action by Government is intended to be on its own motion and not by application, and, secondly, that the power need not be exercised unless Government itself feels that its exercise is necessary. He refers, by way of contrast, to the opening words of S. 150 where provision is made for review of orders of the Tribunal in these words: "150. Review of orders of Tribunal. (1) The Tribunal may, either on the application of the Registrar, or on the application of any party interested, review its own order in any case, and pass in reference thereto such order as it thinks just: Provided that, no such application made by the party interested shall be entertained, unless the Tribunal is satisfied that there has been the discovery of new and important matter of evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when its order was made, or that there has been some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason: * * * *' ;