The Bombay High Court addressed the legality of a government corrigendum issued on February 14, 2017, which amended a previous government resolution from September 23, 2013. The corrigendum allowed the registration of more than one Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society (PACCS) in a single revenue village, provided certain financial conditions were met.

The petitioners, who are registered cooperative societies, challenged the corrigendum on the grounds that it introduced significant policy changes without following the proper legal process. The court ruled that the changes could not be classified as a "corrigendum" because they were substantive policy modifications. Additionally, the court found that the state government failed to follow the required procedure under Article 166 of the Constitution of India and the Maharashtra Government Rules of Business, 1975, which mandates that significant policy changes be brought before the Council of Ministers.

The court quashed the corrigendum, holding that it was improperly issued and not merely a correction of a typographical or clerical error.

1. Background

• The Government of Maharashtra had issued a resolution on September 23, 2013, stating that only one PACCS should be registered in a single revenue village.
• The February 14, 2017 corrigendum attempted to amend this resolution, allowing more than one PACCS in a village under certain conditions.

2. Petitioners' Arguments

• The petitioners argued that the corrigendum introduced significant policy changes, not corrections of errors.
• They contended that the government did not follow the necessary legal procedures to make such changes, as required by the Constitution and state rules.

3. Respondent's Arguments

• The state argued that the corrigendum was intended to clarify existing policies and that the changes were necessary for the practical functioning of cooperative societies.

4. Court's Analysis

• The court analyzed whether the corrigendum was indeed a mere correction or a substantial policy change.
• It was determined that the corrigendum introduced new conditions and eligibility criteria, which could not be classified as a simple correction.
• The court also found that the state had not followed the prescribed procedures under the Rules of Business for introducing such significant changes.

5. Conclusion

• The court concluded that the corrigendum was not valid and quashed it, reiterating that significant policy changes require appropriate legal procedures and cannot be implemented under the guise of a "corrigendum."