1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3616 OF 2007 Gangabisan s/o Kashinathrao Thaware - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra & Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.VD Salunke,Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.R.P.Phatake,AGP for Resp.Nos. 1 to 4; Mr.R.N.Dhorde,Adv.h/for Mr. R.A.Tambe,Adv. for Respondent Nos. 7 and 9; Mr.Vijay Autade, Adv. h/for Mr. VD Sapkal, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 11 and 13; Mr.A.B.Kale, Advocate for Resp.No.15. ----- CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE : 31st August, 2010. ORAL ORDER :(PER: S.B.DESHMUKH,J.) 1) Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondents waive rule notice. Heard finally, by consent of parties. 2 3) At the outset, we would like to record that our order dated 27th August, 2010 is important, relevant and necessary, which was passed after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. 4) In view of the order dated 27th August, 2010, the matter was adjourned today, i.e. 31st August, 2010. Today, learned AGP tendered the Affidavits filed on behalf of Respondent No.2 and 4, sworn in by Mr. Chetan s/o Atmaram Choudhari, Assistant Director of Marketing, Maharashtra State, Pune, and Mr.Bhaskar s/o Sitaram Jadhav, respectively. The affidavits are taken on record and marked by letter "A" and "B" respectively for identification. The affidavits seem to have been affirmed on 30th August, 2010. Photo copies of the affidavits are reported to have been served on learned counsel for the other side. 4) Incidentally, Respondent Nos.5 to 14, who have been served, are represented by respective counsel. 5) The order impugned in this petition is at page 78, it is passed by District Deputy Registrar (Cooperative Societies) Beed. Our pointed query, which we put to learned counsel Mr. VD Salunke for petitioner and Mr. RN Dhorde 3 learned Counsel, appearing for Respondent Nos.7 to 9, was - Whether page 78 (Exhibit-G) can be said to be a communication/letter or can it be regarded as an order. According to Mr.Dhorde, it is a decision taken by an authority, i.e. District Deputy Registrar. Another pointed query, which we put to both the learned Counsel is, whether it is a quasi-judicial proceeding or proceeding initiated under the garb of administrative action, to which, Mr.Salunke, learned Counsel submitted that, it is a quasi- judicial proceeding, whereas according to Mr.Dhorde, learned Counsel, though it is a quasi- judicial proceeding, the same is not challenged in this writ petition. Mr.Dhorde and Mr. VD Salunke fairly concede that petitioner and Responder Nos.5 to 14 were not heard while addressing communication at page 78. 6) We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties. In our view, page 78 cannot be said to be an order, more so, a quasi-judicial order. We find, it is a simplicitor communication issued by the District Deputy Registrar, without hearing the original complainant, petitioner and parties likely to be affected, i.e. Respondent Nos.5 to 14. Therefore, we are inclined to quash and set aside the said 4 communication at page 78 of the petition. The entire term of the management of Respondent nos.5 to 14 is nearing completion. In earlier order, we have noted as to how many days have been remained for completion of the term. Mr. Dhorde, learned Counsel, on instructions, submits that voters list has been finalized for next election. According to him, now nothing remains to be adjudicated upon. 7) Per contra, Mr.Salunke, learned Counsel, submits that only the voters list has been finalized and election programme is yet to be declared. Learned Counsel also submits that a proposal for seeking extension of term is already submitted. 8) District Deputy Registrar, who is present in the Court, given instructions to learned AGP that extension in favour of Respondent Nos.5 to 14 has been granted in last week of August, 2010. 9) In our view, principles of democracy have been defeated by the delay or time consumed in legal process. In our earlier order, we have referred the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Eureka Forbes Limited Vs. Allahabad Bank and Ors., reported in 2010 (5) 5 Supreme 39. We reiterate and remind the said verdict of the Supreme Court to all public servants. Apart from this, we are also pointing out the provisions of Maharashtra Government Servants Regulations of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in discharge of official Duties Act, 2005. 10) We are inclined to quash and set aside the order (Exhibit-G, pg. 78) and we are further inclined to fix the time limit for deciding the complaint/representation made by the petitioner, which has now become part of the record, i.e. page 122, dated 16th December, 2006 annexed along with additional affidavit of Respondent no.4 Mr.Bhaskar Jadhav. 11) In facts of the present case, we have considered the submissions advanced by Mr.Dhorde, learned Counsel, that the order or communication (at page 78) is not challenged in this writ petition. For the reasons, which we have recorded in the foregoing paragraphs, we turn down this very objection raised by Mr. Dhorde. 12) As already noted herein above, it is brought to the notice of this Court by learned AGP, on instructions by District Deputy Registrar, that extension is granted in favour of 6 Respondent Nos.5 to 14 to remain in office, may be probably in accordance with the provisions of law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion as regards granting extension in favour of Respondent Nos. 5 to 14 by the authority concerned. 13) Having taken into consideration the averments made in the petition and in the affidavits; and the submissions advanced by the respective parties, we pass the following order : 14) The writ petition is partly allowed. The order/communication dated 5.1.2007 (Exhibit-G, page 78) passed by District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Beed, is hereby quashed and set aside. The representation dated 2nd December, 2006 submitted by the petitioner (Exhibit-I, page 80), shall be decided in accordance with provisions of law by the District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Beed, after hearing petitioner and Respondent Nos. 5 to 15. The petitioner and Respondent Nos.5 to 15 are directed to remain present before the District Deputy Registrar on 13th September, 2010 at 11.00 a.m.. The District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Beed shall hear the parties and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with provisions of law within a week 7 thereafter, precisely on or before 21st September, 2010. In the event the matter could not be decided within the aforesaid stipulated time limit due to some genuine difficulties, the District Deputy Registrar may make an application seeking extension for disposal of the matter before this Court. 15) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (S.B.DESHMUKH) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/