1 wp10273.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10273 OF 2010 Sau. Sonali Anil Pagariya, Age: 37 years, Occ: Household., R/o. 16B, Jayshankar Colony, Dhule & Anr. ...PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through the Minister of State For Co-operation, Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 and others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for State respondents. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 12TH JULY, 2011 PER COURT : Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.P. for State. 2. This petition is filed challenging the order dated 15-10-2009 passed by the Minister of 2 wp10273.10 State for Co-operation, Marketing, Textile & De- addiction activities, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai in Revision NO.445 of 2009. The petitioner herein filed Revision before the Minister against the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik Division, Nashik in Appeal bearing Nos. A-33/2007 to A-36/2007. Four Revisions are decided by the Minister arose out of common order dated 12-06-2009 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik Division, Nashik in Appeal bearing Nos. A-33/2007 to A-36/2007 preferred against the letter dated 09-11-2006 issued by the Liquidator of Shri. Panditratna Kanhaiyalalji Mahasa Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Mydt., Dhule. 3. The petitioners herein are the Managing Committee members of Shri. Panditratna Kanhaiyalalji Mahasa Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Mydt., Dhule, which is duly registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies 3 wp10273.10 Act, 1960. The Revision was preferred on the grounds which are mentioned in the Revision and one of the ground which was taken in Revision was that Joint Divisional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik Division, Nashik is not competent to make enquiry under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Minister decided the Revision and passed order as follows : ORDER The Revision Application Nos. 442 & 445/2009 are hereby partly allowed. The impugned Order dated 12.06.2009 passed in Appeal No.A-33/2007 and A-36/2007 is hereby quashed and set aside as against present Applicants. The impugned report u/s.88 of the said Act dated 19.08.2006 is hereby quashed and set aside as against present Applicants only. All these 4 matters are remanded back 4 wp10273.10 to the Opponent No.2 for conducting fresh enquiry u/s.88 of the said Act. The Opponent No. 2 is ordered to make the proper enquiry regarding recovery of dues and adjust the amounts so recovered towards the liability of Applicants and fix the liabilities of the Applicants a fresh. No Order as to the cost of these Revisions." 4. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that, in case of other similarly situated persons and who were members of the managing committee, in their cases, Minister while setting aside the order in their Revision, no further inquiry is directed and also there was no further direction to make proper enquiry regarding recovery of the dues and adjust the amounts so recovered. However, in the case of present petitioners, not only the matters are remanded back to the authorised Enquiry Officer i.e. respondent No.2 in revision but fresh enquiry 5 wp10273.10 is directed under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and there is further direction for proper enquiry regarding recovery of dues and adjustment of the amounts so recovered towards the liability of applicants and fix the liabilities of the applicants afresh. 5. According to the Counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are aggrieved by the part of the order of Minister by which respondent No. 2 is directed to make proper enquiry regarding recovery of dues and adjust the amounts so recovered towards the liability of applicants and fix the liabilities of the applicants afresh. According to the Counsel for the petitioners, in case of other similarly situated persons, no such order has been passed then it was not permissible for the Minister to pass such order. Therefore, Counsel for the petitioners would submit that this petition may be allowed. 6. Upon hearing Counsel for the petitioners 6 wp10273.10 and learned A.G.P. for State, I am of the opinion that no interference is warranted under extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in the judgment and order passed by the Minister in the Revision. Merely because Minister has ordered fresh enquiry under section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, there cannot be prejudice to the interest of the petitioners. If it is the case of the petitioners that they are not indulged in any misdeeds or in fraud, any direction given by the Minister to make proper enquiry regarding recovery of dues and adjust the amount cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners. The concerned authority while passing any order in respect of the recovery of dues and adjustment will give proper hearing to the petitioners and then only pass the appropriate orders. Directions given in the revision cannot be faulted on the grounds that some other order is passed where there is no direction for fresh enquiry. If the petitioners are aggrieved and if any aggrieved person other 7 wp10273.10 than petitioners challenges those orders before this Court, this Court will properly deal with those orders. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, no case is made out for interference. 7. However, as stated earlier while making enquiry in respect of the recovery of dues or adjustment of the amount of recovery, the petitioners should be given proper and reasonable hearing by the concerned Officer. Writ Petition is dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/JUL11