1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4987 OF 2010 Rajabhau s/o Raghunathrao Mundhe, Age 50 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Wadvani, Tq. Wadvani District Beed. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 (Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Latur Division, Latur. 3. Shri Dhraiyasheel Sundarrao Solanke, Age Major, Occ. Agri., R/o Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, District Beed. 4. Shri Prakash Sundarrao Solanke, Age Major, Occ. Agri. & Minister, R/o Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon, (Deleted with the District Beed. Leave of Hon’ble Court) 5. The Beed District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Beed, through its Manager. 6. The Hon'ble Cabinet Minister for Co-operation, Marketing and Textile Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai. ... RESPONDENTS 2 ..... Shri R.N. Dhorde, Advocate holding for Shri R.L. Kute, Advocate for the petitioner Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 6 Shri S.B. Talekar, Advocate for respondent No.3. Shri D.J. Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent No.5. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 11th June, 2010 PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. We have heard Shri R.N. Dhorde, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, learned A.G.P. accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 6. Shri S.B. Talekar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3 and Shri D.J. Chaudhari, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that leave may be granted to the petitioner for deleting respondent No.4. Leave granted at the risk of the petitioner. 3. This petition, filed by the petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent No.6 Cabinet Minister to hear the application for stay and/or Appeal No.362/2010. The petitioner further prays for issuance of a 3 writ of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents from taking any action in pursuance to the impugned order dated 29.5.2010, passed by the respondent No.2, disqualifying the present petitioner till the decision of the application for stay in Appeal No.362/2010 and also prays that directions may be issued for holding that decision of the appeal, if adverse to the petitioner, shall not be given effect to for a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the order by the petitioner. The other prayers are pertaining to the ad-interim reliefs. 4. In the light of the reliefs which the petitioner has prayed for in this petition, we do not deem it necessary to advert to the facts in detail which necessitated the petitioner to file the present petition. Since an appeal, undisuputedly, is pending consideration before the respondent No. 6, according to us, it would be wholly inappropriate to make any observations in respect of the merits of the matter. Suffice it to say that the petitioner had filed an appeal accompanied by an application for stay on 3.6.2008, the petitioner was intimated the date of hearing as 8.6.2009 and thereafter was informed by a communication that it was not possible for respondent No.6 to hear the appeal. It now transpires that the hearing of the appeal is fixed on 15.6.2010. In that light of the matter, we are inclined to allow this petition insofar as it relates to prayer clauses (B) and (C). Since the appeal is already fixed for hearing, we do not consider it necessary to issue any time frame to the respondent No.6 for decision of the appeal. We may only express and hope that respondent No.6 to 4 expeditiously decide the pending matter. 5. Insofar as prayer clause (D) is concerned, i.e. the issuance of a direction for staying the effect and operation of the order passed by respondent No.6 in appeal and stay application for a period of 15 days from its receipt is concerned, we have heard Shri Dhorde, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.B. Talekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3. Mr. Talekar, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has very strongly objected to the grant of such relief. According to the learned counsel for respondent No.3, the conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to claim any discretionary relief from this Court. It is also urged before us that since the allegations had been levelled against the petitioner, which have been substantiated in the enquiries conducted by the officers. In such circumstances, it is, therefore, urged before us that this Court would be leath to grant any relief of this nature much less to the petitioner, who does not deserve to be granted such relief. 6. Our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the petitioner to a similar order passed by us in respect of the present parties. This Court, by its order dated 16.4.2010, in Writ Petition No.3229/2010, had also granted similar relief by observing that similar orders had been passed by the Division Benches of this Court in the past. 7. In that light of the matter, we are inclined to allow this petition 5 also insofar as it relates to prayer clause (D) is concerned. We accordingly direct that, in the event respondent No.3 passes an order in the pending appeal or application, which is adverse to the petitioner, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said order by the petitioner, in order to enable him to avail the remedies available to the petitioner in law of challenging the same. 8. Rule is, therefore, made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)