WP 4024/11 & eight others 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4024/2011 Subrao Fakirji Pande V/s The State & others. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4025/2011 Ravan Maroti Kekan V/s The State & others. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4026/2011 Narayan Ramrao Neharkar V/s The State & others. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4028/2011 Pralhad Sakharam Lomte V/s The State & others. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4029/2011 Ravan Vishwanath Shinde V/s The State & others. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4030/2011 Babu Ranba Neharkar V/s The State & others. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4031/2011 Balasaheb Balikram Gaikwad V/s The State & others. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4045/2011 Devidas Bankatrao Sawant V/s The State & others. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4046/2011 Dattatraya Sambhaji Chavan V/s The State & others. _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Shri R.T. Nagargoje, Advocate for petitioners. Shri K.S. Patil, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. Shri T.G. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent nos.4 & 5. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Date: 26.09.2011 WP 4024/11 & eight others 2 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have approached this Court for direction to the respondent nos.4 & 5 to pay the due amount to them. Shri T.G. Gaikwad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.4 & 5, raises a preliminary objection regarding tenability of the petitions on the ground that the respondent nos.4 & 5 are not the “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, writ is not tenable against them. The learned counsel in this respect relies on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Shamrao Vithal Cooperative Bank Ltd. & another V/s Padubidri Pattabhiram Bhat & another (1993 (1) Mh.L.J., (F.B.), 1). Shri R.T. Nagargoje, the learned counsel for the petitioners, however, in this WP 4024/11 & eight others 3 respect relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. V/s Chandra Bhan Dubey & others (AIR 1999 SC 753). We do not find it necessary to go into the larger issue as to whether the respondent nos.4 & 5 are the “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution or not. From the record, it is clear that the respondent nos. 4 & 5 have themselves admitted the claims of the petitioners. The communication dated 1.7.2011 addressed by the Special Auditor Class – I to the Regional Joint Director of Sugar would reveal that the society has admitted the claim of nine employees as per the chart annexed to the said letter. The said letter is duly signed by the Chief Accountant and Managing Director of the respondent nos.4 & 5. We find that the present petitioners are entitled to the amount, which is duly admitted by the respondent nos.4 & 5. Undisputedly, the respondent nos.4 & 5 are WP 4024/11 & eight others 4 under the control of the respondent nos.1 to 3, who are the organs of the “State”. In that view of the matter, the petitions are allowed by directing the respondent nos. 4 & 5 to make the payment to the petitioners as per their own admission in the chart given to the respondent no.3 and further directing the respondent nos.1 to 3 to ensure that the payment is made to the petitioners within a period of six weeks from today. (M.T. Joshi, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) Dt/- 26.09.2011 ndk/c2691111