IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 312 OF 1999 PETITION NO. 312 OF 1999 PETITION NO. 312 OF 1999 1. Madgaum Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., a Co-operative Bank registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, as applied to the State of Goa, having its Head Office, at Aquem-Alto, Margao, Goa 403 601, through its General Manager, Shri P. P. Kamath, major, married, Indian National, resident of Margao, Goa. 2. Shri Ramakant S. Angle, major, married, Indian National, resident of Margao, Director of Madgaum Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. 3. Shri Ivo Almeida Coutinho, major, married, Indian National, resident of Margao, Director & Vice Chairman of Madgaum Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. 4. Shri Dilip R. N. Sanvordekar, major, married, Indian National, resident of Margao, Director of Madgaum Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. 5. Shri Arvind M. Hodarkar, major, married, Indian National, resident of Margao, Director of Madgaum Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. - 2 - 6. Shri Andrew S. Gracias, major, married, Indian National, resident of Margao, Director of Madgaum Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. 7. Shri Gurudas L. Kamat, major, married, Indian National, resident of Margao, Director of Madgaum Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. 8. Shri Suresh R. Phadte, major, married, Indian National, resident of Margao, Chairman & Director of Madgaum Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. 9. Shri Mhalu G. Naik, major, married, Indian National, resident of Margao, Director of Madgaum Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. 10. Shri Kishore V. Narvekar, major, married, Indian National, resident of Margao, Director of Madgaum Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. ... Petitioners versus 1. The State of Goa, through the Secretary, Department of Co-operation, Secretariat, Panaji, Goa - 403 001. 2. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Government of Goa, Panaji, Goa. - 3 - 3. Shri Puti Gaonkar, major, married, Indian National, resident of G5, Machado Apartments, Tisk, Ponda, Goa. ... Respondents Mr. S. G. Dessai, Senior Advocate with Mr. D. B. Ambekar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, Advocate General with Ms. Winnie Coutinho, Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. A. V. Nigalye, Advocate for Respondent No.3, absent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA N. MHATRE & P. V. HARDAS, JJ. DATED : 20TH JANUARY, 2004. ORAL JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT(PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) An Order dated 30th September, 1999, passed by Respondent No.2 herein, at Exhibit P-1, thereby granting an ex-parte stay and thereby staying the appointment of candidates who had appeared for written test on 13th June, 1999 and for an oral interview subsequently for the clerical posts, is the subject matter of challenge in the present Petition. 2. This Court by its Order dated 14th October, 1999, while issuing Rule in the matter had directed that - 4 - the Order impugned in the present Petition and all further proceedings before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies were stayed and the appointments made by the Petitioners shall be subject to the final result of the Petition. 3. Mr. S. G. Dessai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners states that in the present Petition, the impugned Order is questioned on the ground that the second Respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute as was filed before him and consequently the Order impugned is an Order beyond jurisdiction of the second Respondent. According to us, this point can be agitated by the Petitioners before the second Respondent by filing its reply and raising the plea of want of jurisdiction of the second Respondent to entertain the dispute. 4. The Petition is, therefore, accordingly disposed of by giving liberty to the Petitioners to file its reply raising amongst other grounds the ground of jurisdiction, if so advised. If an application in this respect is filed before the second Respondent, the second Respondent, after giving an opportunity to Respondent No.3 herein to contest the same, shall decide it as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. - 5 - The Interim Order of this Court in so far as it operates in respect of the stay of the impugned Order to continue till the decision of the said application. 5. Rule made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. SMT. NISHITA N. MHATRE, J. P. V. HARDAS, J. RD.