1 WP 940.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 940 OF 2011 Satish S/o Shahaji Tekale & Oths. .... PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another .... RESPONDENTS Mr. N.P. Patil – Jamalpurkar, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. S.K.Kadam, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 17/02/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2. The petitioners, vide present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks directions to quash and set aside notice dated 19/1/2011 issued by respondent no. 2 under Section 78 ( 1 ) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 [ For short, ‘ said Act ’ ] or in alternative prays that respondent no. 2 should not give effect to any adverse order, if passed against the petitioners, under Section 78 of the said Act for a period of one ( 1 ) month. 2 WP 940.2011 3. Mr. N.P. Patil – Jamalpurkar, learned counsel for petitioners submits that impugned notice is false, frivolous and not in consonance with the provisions of Statute. Learned counsel submits that opposite group of the petitioners failed to get favourable orders of re-election from this Hon’ble Court because of the pendency of the L.P.A. and as such have adopted and chosen the present recourse. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have submitted Bonds as required before the Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Kallam. In spite of the same, present impugned notice is issued. In fact, in the year 2009 itself, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kallam had issued general directions to all the co-operative societies for execution and submission of Bonds by Managing Committee members, but, prior to the same, the petitioners in the year 2007 itself have submitted the Bonds. As such, impugned notice could not have been issued. Learned counsel further submits that in alternate if any adverse order is passed, the same may not be given effect for a period of one ( 1 ) month with a view to enable the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy. 4. The petitioners have challenged show cause notice. The petitioners have every opportunity to put-forth their say before the authority issuing show cause notice. The authority after considering all the material, passes the order. It would not be appropriate to stay the 3 WP 940.2011 proceedings before the authority. The impugned notice is merely a show cause notice. The authority will consider the say filed by the petitioners. In light of the same, it would not be appropriate to entertain the petition impugning the said notice. 5. Regarding alternative prayer in respect of protection for a limited period, we feel that if any order is passed, the petitioners have remedy under the Statute and before higher forum they can pray for interim orders. We do not feel it appropriate, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to exercise our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction for grant of alternate prayer. 6. In light of the above , the Writ Petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] knp/WP 940.2011