1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Civil Application No.9527 Of 2010 In Letters Patent Appeal No.201 Of 2010 In Writ Petition No.5167 Of 2010 Yogita D/o Madhukar Shinde. .. Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others. .. Respondents. -------- Shri. D.R. Irale-Patil, Advocate for applicant. Shri. V.D. Godbharale, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri. V.J. Dixit, Senior Counsel i/by Shri. A.P. Chaware, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE: 25th AUGUST 2010 2 PER COURT : 1) Heard Shri. D.R. Irale Patil, counsel for the applicant; Shri. V.J. Dixit, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.3,4 and 5 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 2) The learned counsel for the applicant Shri. Irale-Patil has placed reliance on the following reported judgment. (1) Pralhad Vithalrao Pawar v. Managing Director, K.S.S. Karkhana Ltd., 1998 (3) Mh.L.J. 214; (2) Osmanabad District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Asaram Vishwanath Waghmare, 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 366; (3) Satwati Deswal v. State of Haryana, (2010) 1 SCC 126; (4) Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 AIR SCW 2134; (5) Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohar Singh, (2008) 5 SCC 542; 3 (6) Shahaji Lingram Bhosale v. Chief Administrative Officer, 2004 C.T.J. 201; (7) M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation v. Jahan Khan, 2007 AIR SCW 5712. 3) We have perused the documents placed on record, the impugned order and the order passed by the Court. After considering the facts of the case in its entirety and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel, we are not inclined to grant interim relief to the applicant. 4) The learned Senior Counsel Shri. Dixit submitted that by promotion a person has been now appointed as General Manager. This factual position is disputed by learned counsel Shri. Irale Patil. From the arguments of the counsel, it seems that, there are disputes 4 going on in the management / managing committee of the bank. Some inquiry under section 78 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act is also initiated. It is also informed by the counsel that the bank has filed a dispute against the applicant for claiming damages. 5) The facts demonstrated draw a disturbing feature of the case as we find that the issue relates to functioning of the bank, which is custodian of public money. We are, therefore, not convinced to pass any interim order. 6) We, however, direct the Cooperative Court to expeditiously dispose of the dispute. The parties before this Court undertake to cooperate with the Cooperative Court in final disposal. 5 7) The observations made by the learned Single Judge in the order in respect of the nature of appointment of the applicant and the application of Sections 14, 34 of the Specific Reliefs Act to the facts of the case shall stand suspended as the main dispute is pending adjudication before the Cooperate Court. The observations made by the learned Single Judge be treated as prima facie in nature. The parties are entitled to raise all available issues on facts and in law at the time of final disposal of the dispute. All the issues of law and facts are kept open. 8) The civil application is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (K.K. TATED, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ ca.9527.10