Case Background
The matter in question involved a petition filed by a Handloom Weavers Society challenging an order by the Deputy Commissioner, which granted building permission under Section 34 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner contended that the Deputy Commissioner lacked the jurisdiction to authorize the sale of the building, arguing that the official was not a delegated authority under the Act.
Court's Observations on Alternative Remedies
Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, presiding over the case alongside Justice Bharati Dangre, inquired whether the petitioner had access to alternative remedies. The court remarked on the prevalent issue of parties bypassing statutory remedies in favor of filing writ petitions, stating, "Every order we see is a writ petition...why have you created this Act? Deputy Registrar passes an order, he has no power to execute and for that writ petition is filed. Every order under Co-operative Societies Act is a writ petition. What is the use of bringing this Act which is increasing litigation for the court..." This observation underscores the court's concern that the legislative framework is being underutilized, leading to an increased burden on the judiciary.
Emphasis on Exhausting Statutory Remedies
The court emphasized that the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act provides specific remedies that should be pursued before invoking the court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The respondent's counsel highlighted that Section 154 of the Act offers a revisionary mechanism through the State Government and the Registrar. The court noted that only after these statutory avenues have been exhausted should parties consider approaching the High Court.
Implications of the Court's Remarks
The Bombay High Court's observations have significant implications for the administration of justice concerning co-operative societies in Maharashtra. By urging litigants to utilize the remedies provided within the Act, the court aims to reduce the influx of writ petitions, thereby allowing the judiciary to focus on matters that genuinely require its intervention. This approach not only streamlines the legal process but also reinforces the efficacy of the statutory mechanisms established by the legislature.
Conclusion
The court adjourned the matter for two weeks, granting the petitioner's counsel time to consider the availability of alternative remedies. This development serves as a reminder of the judiciary's expectation that litigants should fully engage with the statutory frameworks in place before seeking judicial review, thereby promoting a more efficient and effective legal system.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.