Bombay High Court
ASHOK VISHWANATHRAO JAGTAPversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The recovery order under Section 85 is valid despite the delay, as the cost of the inquiry is not a strict liability and the six‑month limitation does not vitiate the order.
Summary
The petitioner, Ashok Vishwanathrao Jagtap, challenged a 2015 order of the Additional Registrar and a 2019 order of the Minister for Cooperation, seeking recovery of Rs.16,000 incurred as cost of an inquiry under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. He argued that Section 85 requires such recovery orders to be passed within six months, and therefore the 2015 order was time‑barred and illegal. The State contended that the amount was merely the cost of the inquiry, not a strict liability, and that the delay did not invalidate the order. The Court examined the provisions of Section 85 and held that the cost of the inquiry cannot be treated as a liability in the strict sense, and a delay beyond six months does not vitiate the recovery when the cost must be borne by the office‑bearers. Consequently, the Court found no error or illegality in the impugned orders. The petition was dismissed without costs.
Issues considered
- The order for recovery of inquiry costs under Section 85 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, is time‑barred if not passed within six months.
- Whether the cost incurred for an inquiry under Section 83 constitutes a liability that can be recovered under Section 85.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 83, 85
Subjects
- Cooperative Societies
- Section 83
- Section 85
- Cost Recovery
- Writ Petition
- Time-bar
- Maharashtra
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:14511
1 of 3 927-WP.4142.2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
927 WRIT PETITION NO. 4142 OF 2020
ASHOK VISHWANATHRAO JAGTAP
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 27th MARCH 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Advocate for the respective parties.
2. By the present petition, the Petitioner challenges the order
dated 08.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional Registrar (Recovery
and Planning), Cooperative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune, as well
as the judgment and order dated 03.06.2019 passed by the learned
Minister for Cooperation, Marketing and Textile Department,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai.
3. Mr. Salunke, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, submits that
an inquiry under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies
Act, 1960 (for short, “the Act”) was conducted against the office
bearers on 29.12.2012, incurring a cost of Rs.16,000/-. It is his
contention that the order for recovery of the said amount under
Section 85 of the Act came to be passed on 08.05.2015. According to
him, Section 85 mandates that such an order must be passed within a
Tauseef
2 of 3 927-WP.4142.2020.odt
period of six months, and since the impugned order was not passed
within the prescribed period, the same is time-barred. He, therefore,
submits that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the
provisions of Section 85 of the Act.
4. It is further submitted that the Petitioner had preferred a
revision before the learned Minister, who initially granted stay to the
impugned order vide order dated 16.05.2015. However, subsequently,
by order dated 03.06.2019, the revision came to be dismissed. Hence,
it is contended that the orders passed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are
liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, Mr. B. A. Shinde, learned AGP for the
Respondent-State, supports the impugned orders and submits that the
amount in question is not a liability but represents the cost incurred
during the inquiry conducted under Section 83 of the Act. He submits
that the Petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference.
6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties
and upon perusal of the material on record, particularly the provisions
of Section 85 of the Act, it appears that the amount sought to be
recovered is towards the cost incurred by the Inquiry Officer in
conducting the inquiry under Section 83 of the Act. The same cannot
be construed as a liability in the strict sense. Merely because the order
was not passed within a period of six months, that by itself would not
Tauseef
3 of 3 927-WP.4142.2020.odt
vitiate the recovery, especially when the cost is required to be borne by
the concerned office bearers/society. The authorities have, therefore,
rightly passed the impugned orders. I do not find any error or illegality
warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.
7. Hence, the present petition is devoid of merit and is
accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…