1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICTION NO. 1146 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1744 OF 2009 (Narayan Bujabrao Bhoyar .v. Yavatmal Zilla Parishad Karmachari Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit, Yavatmal and another) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.V. Parkhi, Advocate for the respondents. Shri S.K. Tambde, Advocate for the applicant/intervenor. CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. 09TH APRIL, 2010. Heard. This is an application moved by the applicant/ intervenor Shri Rajendra Babarao Raut. It is submitted in the application that since the petitioner was removed from the post of Managing Committee Member and the Secretary, the said post became vacant and the applicant/intervenor came to be elected as Secretary of the respondent No.1/Society. In the rejoinder to the application filed by the society, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the subsequent events took place namely the requisition for calling a meeting of vote of no confidence against Shri Rajendra Raut was filed and in the meeting which was held on 23rd December, 2009, the motion was passed against Shri Rajendra Raut. It is further submitted in the rejoinder that one Shri Avinash Laxmanrao Deshmukh was declared as the Secretary of the Society and the resolution to that effect is annexed to the rejoinder at Annexure-R5. In view of these facts, there is no reason to allow the application filed by Shri Rajendra Babarao Raut. Civil Application is, therefore, rejected. 2 WRIT PETITION NO. 1744 OF 2009 Heard. Shri M.I. Dhatrak, the learned Counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to the judgment of the Full Bench (to which, I was party). He submitted that this Court, in the Full Bench, while answering the issue referred to the Full Bench, at page Nos.71 and 72, clauses (A) and (B) respectively, more particularly in clause (B) at page 72 has observed thus :- “(B) The declaration of a defaulter resulting in disqualification as contemplated under Section 73FF(1) has to be made by minimum compliance to the principles of natural justice which will have to be read into the provisions of Section 73. The Competent Forum would be expected to issue a notice/intimation calling upon the member of the committee to show cause as to why he be not declared as a defaulter. Considering his reply, if any submitted, a declaration shall be made.” The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the matter at hand, there was no opportunity of hearing offered to the petitioner. The impugned letter dated 13.10.2005 was issued against the petitioner and prior to issuance of this letter, no notice was served on him. Shri Dhatrak, the learned Counsel further submitted that this is in clear breach of the rule of natural justice. He further submitted that in the application for seeking interim relief before the Co-operative Court, the petitioner has raised specifically the ground of non observance of rule of natural justice which is at page 26 of the paper book. Shri S.V. Parkhi, the learned Counsel for the respondents conceded that there was no notice of hearing whatsoever given to the petitioner. 3 In view of the judgment of the Full Bench and submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this is a case for grant of interim relief by issuing Rule. Hence, Rule. Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (ii). JUDGE *rrg.