- (1.) HEARD Shri Samarth learned Counsel for the petitioner at length. The first point argued by Shri Samarth is that the Divisional Joint Registrar has acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the revision under section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (for short "the Act"), at the instance of the respondent herein. According to him the order passed by the Assistant Registrar is dated 14-9-1999 and was one under section 78 of the Act, which was appealable under section 152 of the Act. According to him the respondents were not aggrieved person and at the most the society who had a grievance against the petitioner could have maintained an appeal under section 152 of the Act.
(2.) AT the first place the argument appeared to be attractive, but after examining the relevant provisions and having regard to the fact that even if the appeal was filed under section 152, the same was maintainable before the Joint Registrar who has exercised the revisional jurisdiction in this case. In the circumstances the forum before which the appeal could have been maintained is the same which has decided the present revision application. As such no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner. The petitioner, however, contends that his right of revision has been lost by virtue of the fact that the revisional order has been passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar and no further appeal or revision is available against the said order unlike the order passed in appeal under section 152 of the Act could have been challenged by way of revision under section 154 of the Act. Merely, because the petitioner has lost the remedy of revision cannot be a valid consideration for taking a view that the Divisional Joint Registrar has acted without jurisdiction. In my view the respondents were advised to file revision under section 154, of the Act even according to the petitioner they were not entitled to maintain appeal under section 154 of the Act. Therefore, no other remedy was available to the respondents. They were therefore rightly advised to file revision under section 154 of the Act. Moreover, the purport under section 154 of the Act is wide enough to entitle any person whether aggrieved or otherwise to maintain revision before the State Government and the Registrar under section 154 of the Act. In fact section 154 of the Act can be invoked by the revisional authority by resorting to suo moto action. In the event it is found that the order passed by the lower authority suffers from illegality and impropriety. For the aforesaid reason I am not inclined to accept the stand taken by the petitioner that the Divisional Joint Registrar was not entitled to entertain the revision at the instance of the respondent, as contended by the petitioner. However, on examining the matter in greater detail it would appear that the Assistant Registrar by the order dated 14th September, 1999 had completely misdirected himself in withdrawing the show cause notice for initiating action under section 78 of the Act. In the circumstances, the Divisional Joint Registrar has rightly reversed the same by observing as follows : "on going through the case papers and the submissions of the applicants and the non-applicants, it is observed that the society is running a fair price shop through agent and getting financial benefit from out of the business. The licence of the fair price shop is not in the name of agent but is in the name of society. The non-applicant No. 2 is also running a fair price shop and the licence is in his personal name. The provisions of section 73-FF (1) (v) is as under : (1) Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Act or the Rules made thereunder, in relation to disqualification of being a member of a committee, no person shall be eligible for being appointed, nominated, elected co-opted or for being a member of committee if he --- (V) Carries on business of the kind carried on by the society either in his name or in the name of any member of his family or he or any member of his family as a partner in a firm or a director in a company which carries on business of the kind carried by the society". The provision specifically provide that the business of the kind by the society and if the same business is being carried out by any member or member of his family, then he needs to be declared as disqualified. The provisions are quite clear. Here in instant case the society carries the business of fair price shop through agent and the same business of fair price shop by managing committee member i. e. non-applicant No. 2 and therefore he needs to be declared as disqualified. The action of the non-applicant No. 1 in withdrawing show cause notice is found bad in law and hence following order. "
(3.) THE learned Counsel relied on the decision reported in (Phool Singh v. Collector, Vidisha and others), 1966 M. P. L. J. 632 to contend that when an appeal is available, the aggrieved person is not entitled to the revision. On going through the said decision it appears that the person who is not party to the original proceedings cannot be said to be affected person so as to entitle him towards the right of appeal. We are really not concerned with the said proposition. Moreover, for the reasons referred to above that the respondent had no right of appeal, he was rightly advised to file revision under section 154 of the Act. In my view merely, because he has no right of appeal would not result into suspension of the remedy, of revision, but the same was wide open for the respondent. In the circumstances, I find no reason to interfere and hence rejected. Petition rejected.;