Pune Zilla Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sangh Through Managing Director vs State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Ors

2026:BHC-AS:18812-DB
sbw aswp-8771-2016-J.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8771 OF 2016
Pune Zilla Sahakri Doodh Utpadak Sangh ]
A Society registered under the provisions ]
of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies ]
Act, 1960, having its registered office at ]
Katraj, Village Satara, Katraj Road ]
Pune-411046. ]
Through its Managing Director ] … Petitioner
V/s.
1. State of Maharashtra ]
Through its Secretary ]
The Department of Agriculture ]
Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development ]
and Fisheries Department ]
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya ]
Mumbai. ]

2. Divisional Deputy Registrar ]
Co-operative Societies [Dairy] ]
Mumbai. ]
3. Joint Registrar ]
Co-operative Societies [Dairy] ]
Maharashtra State, Mumbai. ]
4. The Commissioner ]
Dairy Development, Maharashtra ]
State, Administrative Building ]
Worli, Mumbai-400 018. ]
5. Asstt. Commissioner ]
Backward Class Cell ]
Pune Division. ] … Respondents
1/12
Digitally
signed by
SUMEDH
NAMDEO
SONAWANE
Date:
2026.04.21
15:53:31
+0530
SUMEDH
NAMDEO
SONAWANE
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 18:58:23 :::

sbw aswp-8771-2016-J.doc

______________________________________
Mr. Shekhar Jagtap a/w Ms. Sairuchita Chowdhary i/by J. Shekhar
Associates for the Petitioner.
Smt. Reena A. Salunkhe, AGP, for the State.
_____________________________________________
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
th
RESERVED ON : 9 April, 2026.
st
PRONOUNCED ON : 21 April, 2026.
Judgment (Per : Kamal Khata, J) :-
1) By this Petition, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the validity
st
and legality of (i) the Government Resolution dated 1 April, 2004, (ii) the
consequential Order passed by the Divisional Deputy Registrar, Co-operative
th st
(Milk Societies) dated 7 April, 2006 and (iii) the Order dated 1 March,
2016 passed by the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies (Milk).
2) The short question that arises for determination in the present
Petition is whether the Petition falls within the ambit of an “establishment”
under the Maharashtra State Public Services [Reservation for Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
Tribes, Special Backward Category and Other Backward Classes], Act, 2001
(State Public Services Act).
3) Mr. Jagtap, learned Advocate for the Petitioner draws our
attention to Section 2(c) of the Maharashtra State Public Services Act,
which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
“Section 2(c).- “establishment” means any office of the
2/12
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 18:58:23 :::

sbw aswp-8771-2016-J.doc

Government or of a local authority or statutory authority
constituted under any Act of the State Legislature for the time
being in force, or a University or a Company, a Corporation or a
Co-operative Society in which share capital is held by the
Government or any Government aided Institutions.”
3.1) For ready reference, the explanation to the said provision is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause the expression
“Government aided institution” shall also include prior to coming
into force of this Act of thereafter, aid in other monetary
concessions by Government, or is recognised, licenced, supervised
or controlled by Government.”
4) A plain reading of the definition of the term ‘establishment’
indicates that it includes:
(i) any office of the Government or of a local authority or
statutory authority constituted under any Act of the state legislature
for the time being enforced,
(ii) a University,
(iii) a Company,
(iv) a Corporation,
(v) a Co-operative society in which share capital is held by the
Government, and
(vi) any Government-aided Institution.
3/12
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 18:58:23 :::

sbw aswp-8771-2016-J.doc

5) Mr. Jagtap submits that, in the Petitioner co-operative society
the Government does not hold any share capital. Consequently, according to
him, the definition of ‘establishment’ is not attracted to the Petitioner.
He submits that the Explanation, which expands the scope of
the term ‘establishment’ to include Government-aided Institutions or
Institutions which have received aid or other monetary concessions from
the Government or is recognized, licensed, supervised or controlled by the
Government, prior to or after the Act came into force, has no applicability
to the Petitioner.
5.1) He further submits that, the Government Resolution (GR)
th
dated 11 February, 2014 is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the
Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. According to him, the
Respondents have erroneously interpreted the provisions of the Act and
have incorrectly classified the Petitioner as an entity to which the provisions
of the State Public Services Act applies.
5.2) It is further contended that, the land in question was not gifted
but was purchased by the Petitioner from the State Government at market
value. He submits that the mere receipt of certain form of aid from the
Government would not by itself, bring the Petitioner within the ambit of an
“establishment’ under the State Public Services Act. He therefore submits
that the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.
4/12
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 18:58:23 :::

sbw aswp-8771-2016-J.doc

5.3) In support of his submissions, he relies upon the following
decisions:-
st
(i) the Order dated 31 July, 2018 passed by this Court in the present
matter;
(ii) Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti
Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Others vs. V.R.Rudani and Others reported in
(1989) 2 SCC 691 ;
(iii) M adhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Others reported in (2007) 12 SCC 529 ;
(iv) Bank Karmachari Sangh, Pune vs. State of Maharashtra and another
reported in 2017(3) Mh.L.J. 957 ;
(v) The Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra &
th
Ors. in Writ Petition No.925 of 2007 dated 25 January, 2018;
(vi) Chaitanya s/o Pandit Nanaware vs. The Jalgaon District Central Co-
operative Bank and others in Public Interest Litigation No.108 of 2019
th
dated 16 September, 2019; and
(vii) Jalgaon Zilha Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit vs. State of
Maharashtra and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2485 .
6) Per contra, Smt. Salunkhe, learned AGP for the State, opposed
the Writ Petition by placing reliance on three Affidavits filed on behalf of
th
the Respondents, namely: (i) Affidavit dated 17 November, 2017 (ii)
5/12
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 18:58:23 :::

sbw aswp-8771-2016-J.doc

th th
Affidavit dated 8 December, 2017 and (iii) Affidavit dated 12 January,
2018. She submitted that Respondent No.4 had rightly applied the GR
th
dated 11 February, 2004, to the Petitioner and consequently the provisions
of the GR were binding and required to be complied with.
6.1) She submitted that, the Petitioner had received financial aid
from the Government under the Sangh Rehabilitation Scheme for the
period of 2001 to 2004. On that basis, it was contended that the Petitioner
would fall within the ambit of an “establishment” under the said Act. She
further submitted that the record indicates that the reserved categories are
not adequately represented in the Petitioner’s establishment and that there
is a shortfall vis-à-vis the prescribed 52% reservation.
th
6.2) Inviting our attention to the Affidavit dated 17 November,
2017, she submitted that, the Petitioner had also received assistance from
the Central Government in the form of subsidy linked to an NCDC loan
amounting to approximately Rs.7.6 crores. In view thereof, the Petitioner
was bound to adhere to the reservation policies of the State Government.
She submitted that the Petitioner’s contention that it was required to
undertake urgent recruitment was misleading and contrary to the record,
and in any event, could not constitute a ground to exempt it from
th
compliance with the GR dated 11 February, 2004. She further submitted
th
that, the State Government Resolution dated 11 February, 2004, the
st
communication dated 1 March, 2016 issued by Respondent No.3 and the
6/12
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 18:58:23 :::

sbw aswp-8771-2016-J.doc

th
communication dated 7 April, 2016 issued by the Respondent No.2,being
founded on the reservation policy of the State, were legal and valid. It was
further contended that the Managing Committee of a co-operative society
cannot determine the percentage of reservation at its discretion, but is
bound to follow the policy of the State Government.
th
6.3) Referring to the second Affidavit dated 8 December, 2017, she
submitted that, the Petitioner by virtue of its status as a registered co-
operative society, had availed benefits under various government schemes,
including those for improvement of milk quality and had procured
modernized equipment thereunder. She further submitted that, the Scheme
th
introduced by the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 30
December, 2004 was subsequently approved by the Central Government by
th
its Resolution dated 14 February, 2007, pursuant to which funds were
released and availed by the Petitioner.
th
6.4) Referring to the third Affidavit dated 12 January, 2018, she
submitted that, the Petitioner had before this Court admitted that, the
Collector, Pune had allotted 15 acres of Government land to it at a
th
concessional rate of 50% by Order dated 30 April, 2013 issued under Rule
32 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Rules 1971. On this basis, it was
contended that the Petitioner squarely falls within the definition of
“establishment” under the State Public Services Act.
7/12
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 18:58:23 :::

sbw aswp-8771-2016-J.doc

6.5) She also invited our attention to the Utilization Certificate
th
dated 15 April, 2010 to submit that, the Petitioner had received a subsidy
th
of Rs.5.3 crores under the GR dated 30 March, 2002. She further
submitted that the Petitioner had moved two proposals seeking 50%
subsidy from the Central Government under the Rashtriya Krushi Vikas
Yojana one for Rs.15.54 crores towards modernization, expansion and
automation of main dairy plant and another for Rs.18.51 crores towards
maintenance of cold chain – addressed to the Commissioner of Dairy
th
Development, Maharashtra State, on 9 May, 2016. According to her, the
aggregate financial assistance received and sought to be received by the
Petitioner is to the tune of Rs.34.06 crores and on that basis, the Petitioner
is bound to comply with the reservation policy of the State Government.
6.6) In so far as the decision of this Court in Jalgaon Zilha Sahakari
Dudh Utpdak Sangh Maryadit (supra) is concerned, she submitted that the
GR in question was not under consideration in the said judgment and the
same is therefore distinguishable on that ground.
7) We have heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused
the entire record produced before us.
8) An analysis of the definition of “establishment” under the State
Public Services Act makes it abundantly clear that, the legislative intent is
to include only such co-operative societies in which the Government holds a
share capital. Consequently, the explanation to Section 2 (c) cannot be
8/12
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 18:58:23 :::

sbw aswp-8771-2016-J.doc

invoked to bring within its fold a co-operative society merely on the ground
that it has received financial assistance or land at concessional rates from
the Government.
9) A reference to Section 2(i) which defines “Public Services and
Posts”, further reinforces this position. The provision, inter alia, includes
services and posts in a co-operative society only where the Government is a
shareholder. The section is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
“2(i).- “public services and posts” means the services and posts in
connection with the affairs of the State and includes services and
posts in,—
(i) a local authority;
(ii) a co-operative society established under the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, in which
Government is a shareholder.
(iii) a Board or a Corporation or a statutory body
established by or under a Central or a State Act which is owned
and controlled by the Government or a Government Companies
as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956;
(iv) an educational institution owned and controlled by the
Government which receives grant-in-aid from the Government
including a university established by or under a Maharashtra Act;
(v) any establishment; and
(vi) respect of which reservation was applicable by
Government orders on the date of commencement of this Act and
which are not covered under sub-clauses (i) to (v);”
10) It is thus evident that, the Statute contemplates inclusion only
of such co-operative societies in which the Government has a shareholding
9/12
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 18:58:23 :::

sbw aswp-8771-2016-J.doc

and not all societies which may have received financial aid or other
concessions from the State.
11) In that view of the matter, we hold that the State Government
is not justified in insisting upon compliance with the reservation policy in
the case of the Petitioner-Society, in the absence of any Government
shareholding therein.
12) A similar issue fell for consideration before the Supreme Court
in Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari Bank Maryadit (supra), where, while
construing the corresponding definition of “establishment” it was held that
a co-operative society in which the State does not hold the requisite share
capital would not fall within the ambit of the statute, and consequently, the
regulatory authorities would lack jurisdiction to enforce reservation therein.
13) The same principle has been consistently reiterated by co-
ordinate Benches of this Court in Bank Karmchari Sangh, Pune (supra) has
also considered the definition of the term establishment under the
Reservation Act and held that, the Reservation Act shall be applicable to the
establishment as defined and not otherwise. Notably, it referred to a
th
communication/letter dated 9 March, 2007 issued by the state, which
clarified the position that, the Reservation Act and related promotional
policies are not applicable to the private co-operative bank like Respondent
No. 2 therein as it does not fall within the ambit of the word
“establishment” which is the requirement for extending the benefits of the
10/12
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 18:58:23 :::

sbw aswp-8771-2016-J.doc

reservation policy.
14) Similarly in Solapur Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. (supra) dated
th
25 January 2018, relied upon the Affidavit of the Deputy Secretary Co-
operation, Marketing and Textile Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai which
stated that, the provisions of Section 2(i) of the Reservations Act were
applicable only if the Government is holding share capital in the co-
operative society.
15) Recently, in Chaitanya s/o Pandit Nanaware (supra) having
considered the provisions of the Reservation Act the Division Bench of this
Court has held that, it is apparent that for the purposes of the provisions of
the Act No.8 of 2004 to become applicable to a co-operative society
established under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies
Act, 1960, the necessary requirement is for the Government or a
Government aided institution to be a shareholder in such a society. This
flows not only from the language of section 2(c) but also from language of
section 2(i) sub-clause (2) of the Act No. 8 of 2004. Pertinently, the
th
judgment referred to a communication addressed by the State dated 28
December, 2016 which reflects the position of the State to the effect that in
those District Central Co-operative Banks in which the Government does
not have share, the law relating to reservations would not be applicable to
such societies /institutions.
11/12
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 18:58:23 :::

sbw aswp-8771-2016-J.doc

16) In Jalgaon Zilha Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit
(supra), this Court, upon a conjoint reading of Sections 2(c) and 2 (i) of the
Act, read with Section 4(2) of the Reservation Act, held that a co-operative
Society in which the Government does not hold any share capital would not
fall within the purview of the Reservation Act.
17) We are unable to accept the submissions of the Respondents
that the aforesaid judgments are distinguishable on the ground that the
Government Resolution was not under consideration therein. A Government
Resolution, being an executive instrument, cannot expand or curtail the
scope of a statutory provision, nor can it override the legislative intent in
enacting a statute.
18) As held by the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh vs. GS Dal
and Flour Mills reported in 1990 SCC OnLine SC 19; (1992) Supplement 1
SCC page 150 an executive instruction may supplement a statute where the
field is unoccupied, but it cannot supplant or run contrary to the statutory
mandate of the parent Act. To the extent of any such inconsistency, the
executive instruction must yield and be held ultra vires.
19) In view of the above discussion, the Petition is allowed in terms
of prayer clauses (b) and (c).
19.1) Rule is accordingly made absolute.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.).
12/12
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 18:58:23 :::