1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.984 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2837 OF 2008 (Babasaheb s/o Sonbaji Wasade and another vs. Natthu s/o Kashiramji Waghe and others) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 9, 2009 Heard Shri Parsodkar, learned Counsel for the review petitioners, Shri Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the respondent no.1, and Mrs. Bodade, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.2 to 6. The review petition is filed against the order dated 23.7.2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2837/2008. Shri Parsodkar, learned Counsel for the review petitioners, states that at the relevant time, the review petitioner no.1 was Chairman of the Chandrapur District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. The proceedings under Section 78 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act were initiated against the 2 review petitioners. The Divisional Joint Registrar in the said proceedings, disqualified the review petitioner no.1 as Chairman of the said Bank in view of charge of having committed certain financial irregularities. The review petitioner no.1 has challenged the said order before the State Government by filing appeal and the State Government vide order dated 12.6.2008 stayed the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar. Shri Parsodkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, states that the State Government is likely to take a final decision in the appeal within a short time. It is further submitted by learned Counsel Shri Parsodkar that present respondent no.1 Nathu s/o Kashiramji Waghe had filed Writ Petition No.2837/2008, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.7.2008, which reads thus : “Heard Mr. Madkholkar, the learned Counsel for petitioner and Mr. Ahirkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents no.1 to 5. The learned Counsel for petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file representation for a limited purpose before the Divisional Joint Registrar for taking action against the persons responsible, under Section 146 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, within a period of two weeks and if such representation is made, the competent Authority may be directed to decide the same 3 within the stipulated period. In the circumstances, writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the Competent Authority within two weeks. If such representation is made to the Competent Authority, i.e. Divisional Joint Registrar, he is directed to decide the same on its own merits according to law, by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other interested persons including those who are likely to be affected by the said decision, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.” It is contended that in view of above referred facts, particularly since appeal of the review petitioners is pending with the State Government, direction which is given by this Court in the impugned order may be rectified at this stage. Shri Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the respondent no.1, states that if the State Government dismisses the appeal filed by the review petitioners and if no action is taken by the competent Authority against the review petitioners even after dismissal of the appeal, in that event, liberty may be given to the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2837/2008 to approach this Court for necessary directions. We have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. In view of above referred 4 undisputed facts, it is evident that though the Divisional Joint Registrar has passed the order holding that review petitioner no.1 has alleged to have been involved in committing financial irregularities, however, appeal against the said order is pending with the State Government and the State Government has stayed effect and operation of the said order and, therefore, it will be expedient to permit the State Government to consider the appeal on its own merits in accordance with law. In the circumstances, we revoke the impugned order dated 23.7.2008 with liberty to the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2837/2008 to approach this Court in case action is not initiated against the review petitioners in accordance with law after dismissal of appeal. With these observations, the review petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE khj