- (1.)RULE. RULE made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 18th January, 2011 passed by respondent No. 3 - Minister whereby 2nd respondent's appeal is allowed by setting aside the order dated 10th November, 2010 passed by 1st respondent Regional Joint Director(Sugar) Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur and the matter is remanded for hearing afresh.
(2.)THE brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows :- THE petitioners are the members of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2- Sadashivrao Mandlik Kagal Taluka Sahakari Karkhana Ltd [for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as "Karkhana"] is a specified co-operative society engaged in the business of crushing sugarcane and manufacturing of sugar. Respondent No. 1 is an authority who exercises control and supervision on Karkhana. Respondent No. 3 is the appellate authority under section 152 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 [for short "the said Act"]. On 7-7-2010, the petitioners made an application to Karkhana making a request for issuance of members' list of Karkhana. By this application, the petitioners also showed willingness to pay the copying charges. THE petitioners by separate application dated 26-7-2010 also applied for the certified copy of Agenda and Minutes of Meetings of Board of Directors of Karkhana held during the period 1st April, 2008 to 30th June, 2010. By its order dated 9th August, 2010, respondent No. 1 informed the Managing Director of Karkhana about the petitioners' grievance that they are not getting the list of members of Karkhana and it was therefore directed that the petitioners be given list of members of the Karkhana after payment of copying fees. On 1-9-2010 the petitioners made representation to the Chairman/Managing Director of Karkhana and pointed out the order of respondent No. 1 dated 9-8-2010. It was informed that even though the period of 1 month has elapsed, and the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the copying charges, still the list of members is not given. Fresh request was made to Karkhana to supply a list of its members. THEreafter again on 13-9-2010 and 9-10-2010, the reminders were sent by the petitioners to Karkhana. THE 1st respondent on 24-9-2010 wrote a letter to the Managing Director of Karkhana and gave second direction to him to supply a list of members to the petitioners. On 25-9-2010, 2nd respondent wrote a letter to petitioner No. 5 and informed that the petitioners' request to supply members' list will be considered after payment of copying charges at the rate of 50 paise per 200 words. THE petitioners thereafter tried to deposit an amount of Rs. 20,000/- with respondent No. 2 towards the copying charges. However, same was not accepted. THErefore, petitioners deposited the said amount in the bank account of Karkhana. THE Karkhana acknowledged the said deposit under the letter dated 22-10-2010 written to petitioner No. 4. By the separate letter dated 25-9-2010, the Managing Director of Karkhana informed petitioner No. 5 that Minutes of Meetings of Board of Directors of Karkhana held during the period 1st April, 2008 to 30th June, 2010 do not contain any reference about the petitioners and therefore the petitioners' prayer for certified copy of those minutes could not be accepted. THE 1st respondent thereafter on 10-11-2010 at the instance of petitioners passed an order under the provisions of section 79 of the said Act thereby directing Karkhana to supply the list of its members and copies of Agenda and Minutes of Meetings of Board of Directors of Karkhana held during the period 1st April, 2008 to 30th June, 2010. This order Was challenged by the Karkhana by filing an appeal before respondent No. 3. As stated above, respondent No. 3 has allowed the said appeal and remanded the matter to respondent No. 1. This order is impugned in the present petition. 2A. Mr. Jahagirdar learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the impugned order was passed on two grounds, viz., the 1st respondent before passing an order under section 79 did not grant an opportunity of hearing to the Karkhana and secondly that the payment of Rs. 20,000/- alleged to be made, is required to be verified. He submitted that these grounds are not at all sustainable, firstly, because the hearing is not contemplated under section 79 of the said Act, and, secondly the payment of Rs. 20,000/- by the petitioners is accepted by Karkhana. Mr. Jahagirdar relied upon the provisions of section 32 of the said Act and submitted that it is the right of members to get copies of documents mentioned in clause (1) of said section within one month from the date of payment of fees, however, Karkhana with the ulterior and oblique motive refused to give copies of the said documents. He prayed that the impugned order be set aside and petition be allowed.
Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Karkhana, per contra, contested the petition by supporting the impugned order. He submitted that by the impugned order the matter is remanded to respondent No. 1 with direction to follow the principles of natural justice and therefore this Court should not interfere with the said order. He relied upon sub-section (3) of section 79 of the said Act to contend that before issuing directions under sub-section (2) of section 79, the hearing is required to be given to the concerned parties. He further invited my attention to section 32 of the said Act and submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to get Minutes of Meetings of Board of Directors of Karkhana inasmuch as these Minutes do not disclose any transaction between the petitioners and the society. In order to support his case, Mr. Kumbhakoni relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in (1990) 2 SCC 48, Management of M/s M. S. Nally Bharat Engineering Co, Ltd vs. State of Bihar and ors., (2002) 5 SCC 685, Indian National Congress (I) vs. Institute of Social Welfare and ors. and 1988 Mh.L.J. (SC) 760 = (1988) 4 SCC 21, Dr. M. K. Salpekar vs. Sunil Kumar Shamsunder Chaudhari and ors.

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the impugned order as well as the case laws relied upon by them, I find merit in the petition. The petitioners claim to be the members of Karkhana, is not denied by Karkhana. The petitioners' applications dated 7-7-2010 and 26-7-2010 addressed to Karkhana demanding copies of relevant documents as well as reminders dated 1-9-2010, 13-9-2010 and 9-10-2010 are also not disputed by Karkhana. The orders dated 9-8-2010 and 24-9-2010 issued by respondent No. 1, directing the Karkhana to supply copies of the relevant documents to the petitioners are also not disputed. The Karkhana directed the petitioners to deposit copying charges @50 paise per 200 words and the petitioners in pursuance of these directions tried to deposit the amount of Rs. 20,000/- with the Karkhana, however, same was not accepted and therefore they were constrained to deposit the said amount in the bank account of Karkhana. This fact is also not denied by Karkhana. In fact, Karkhana acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 20,000/- from the petitioners vide its letter dated 20-10-2010 issued to petitioner No. 4.

(3.)FOR the first time on 25-9-2010, Karkhana informed petitioner No. 5 that the certified copy of Agenda and Minutes of Meetings of Board of Directors of Karkhana held during the period 1st April, 2008 to 30th June, 2010 cannot be given for want of reference to the petitioners in the said proceedings. As stated above, respondent No. 1 passed an order under section 79 of the said Act, directing Karkhana to supply copies of the relevant documents to the petitioners and this order was set aside by respondent No. 3 on two grounds, viz., the principles of natural justice are not followed and for verification of deposit of Rs. 20,000/- alleged to be made by the petitioners.
Firstly, I would like to consider submission advanced on behalf of the Karkhana that the order under section 79(2) of the said Act could not have been passed by respondent No. 1 without giving an opportunity of hearing to them. Section 79 of the said Act reads as follows :

"79. Registrar's power to enforce performance of obligations. - (1) The Registrar may direct any society or class of societies, to keep proper books of accounts with respect to all sums of money received and expended by the society, and the matters in respect of which the receipt and expenditure take place, all sales and purchases of goods by the society, and the assets and liabilities of the society, and to furnish such statements and returns and to produce such records as he may require from time to time; and the officer or officers of the society shall be bound to comply with his order within the period specified therein. (2) Where any society is required to take any action under this Act, the Rules or the bye-laws, or to comply with an order made under the foregoing sub-section, and such actions is not taken - (a) within the time provided in this Act, the Rules or the Bye-laws, or the order as the case may be, or (b) where no time is so provided, within such time, having regard to the nature and extent of the action to be taken, as the Registrar may specify by notice in writing, the Registrar may himself, or through a person authorised by him, take such action, at the expense of the society; and such expense shall be recoverable from the society as if it were an arrear of land revenue. (3) Where the Registrar takes action under sub-section (2), the Registrar may call upon the officer or officers of the society whom he considers to be responsible for not complying with the provisions of this Act, the Rules or the Bye-laws, or the order made under sub-section (1) and after giving such officer or officers an opportunity of being heard, may require him or them to pay to the society the expenses paid or payable by it to the State Government as a result of their failure to take action and to pay to the assets of the society such sum not exceeding twenty-five rupees as the Registrar may think fit for each day until the Registrar's direction are carried out."