1 W.P.No.5586/11 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5586 OF 2011. 1. Sahakar Maharshi Kisanrao Varal Patil Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nighoj, Tq.Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar, through its Manager. 2. Macchindra Kisanrao Varal, Age 58 years,Occ.Agri., R/o Nighoj, Tq.Parner, Dist.Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Co-Operation and Textile Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The District Deputy Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Ahmednagar. ... Respondents. ... Mr.N.V.Gaware, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.T.Kaldate, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. 2 W.P.No.5586/11 ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 11.11.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken for for final hearing. 3. The petitioners assail the order dated 7.7.2011, passed by the Respondent No.2, purportedly U/s 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Mr.Gaware, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 29.6.2011, letter was issued by the auditor to the petitioners calling upon the petitioners to rectify the defects and to submit the rectification report within a period of three months. The said letter along with the report was received by the petitioners on 15.7.2011 and prior to that on 7.7.2011, the impugned order was passed. The 3 W.P.No.5586/11 same is pre-determined and could not have been passed without waiting for a period of three months. The learned counsel contends that even rectification report has been submitted on 18.8.2011. According to the learned counsel, the impugned order is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. 4. Mr.Kaldate, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader supports the order and submits that the defects were such which could not be rectified and there was no purpose in waiting for a period of three (3) months. According to learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, the order impugned is legal and proper and does not require any interference. 5. The authority U/s 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, is authorised to assess the damages against the delinquent promoters, to make inquiry and in case any loss is occasioned on account of their acts and omissions, the action can be initiated even on the basis of an audit U/s 81 or an inquiry U/s 83 or an inspection U/s 84 of the Maharashtra 4 W.P.No.5586/11 Cooperative Societies Act. 6. In the present case, the action is being initiated on the basis of audit report. The auditor himself has issued letter to the petitioner to remove the defects within a period of three (3) months. In fitness of things, the Respondents were required to wait for a period of three (3) months and if within a period of three (3) months, the defects were not rectified then should have proceeded further. It is not the case of Respondents that pursuant to the inquiry U/s 83 or an inspection U/s 84 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act or in case of winding of society, the impugned order has been passed. The impugned order is passed solely on an audit report. The auditor himself has given three (3) months time to the petitioners to rectify the defects, the petitioners submit that the rectification report has been submitted on 18.8.2011. All these aspects need to be considered. 7. In such circumstances, the impugned 5 W.P.No.5586/11 order can not be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. It is made clear that the Respondents are at liberty to consider the said rectification report on its own merits and if they are satisfied that the case exist against the petitioners then the present order would not be an impediment to take fresh action. 9. Rule made absolute in above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp558611 6 W.P.No.5586/11