1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7420 OF 2010 1. Radhakrushna s/o Motulal Baheti, Age 45 years, Occ. Agri. 2. Manoj s/o Ramrao Deshmukh, Age 42 years, Occ. Agri. 3. Bhika s/o Sitaram Patil, Age 55 years, Occ. Agri. 4. Dattatraya s/o Madhav Patil, Age 46 years, Occ. Agri. 5. Swapnil s/o Subhash Kabare, Age 35 years, Occ. Agri. 6. Mathuradas s/o Bhikaridas Bairagi, Age 42 years, Occ. Agri. 7. Chindu s/o Shripat Baviskar Age 56 years, Occ. Agri. 8. Vimal Natthu Koli, Age 50 years, Occ. Household All r/o Adawad, Taluka Chopda, District Jalgaon. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Milk, Animal Husbandry and Fishery Department, Mantralaya, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. (Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2 2. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Dairy), Jalgaon ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri R.T. Nagargoje, Advocate for the petitioner Shri S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondents ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 18th August, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.): 1. At the outset, Shri Nagargoje, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks oral leave to amend the petition for incorporating a prayer of issuance of directions in the nature of a writ to the respondent No.2 not to implement the order passed by the respondent No.2, if adverse to the petitioner, for a period of 15 days from the date of its receipt. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the show-cause-notices dated 15.7.2010 issued by the respondent No.2 and also pray for issuance of necessary directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of a writ, directing the respondents not implement the order, passed pursuant to the show-cause-notices, if adverse to the petitioners, for a period of 15 days from the date of its receipt. 4. We are not inclined to entertain this petition in respect of prayer clause (C) to the petition as the petitioners have challenged the show-cause-notice. The petitioners have alternate efficacious remedies available of submitting to the jurisdiction of the authority, pursuant to the receipt of the show-cause-notice. We are informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings are fixed before the respondent No.2 for filing of reply today. In that light of the matter, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere. In this regard, reference may usefully be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Special Director Vs. Mohd. Gulam (2004 (3) SCC 440). 5. However, we are inclined to entertain this petition in respect of the alternate relief which the petitioners have prayed for. We are informed that the petitioners have a remedy of challenging the 4 adverse order, if passed against the petitioners pursuant to the show- cause-notice and in that light of the matter, therefore, we allow this petition in respect of the alternate relief and direct that, in the event respondent No.2 passes an order which is adverse to the interest of the petitioners, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of 15 days from the date of its receipt, to enable the petitioners to avail the alternate remedy available to the petitioners in law of challenging the same. 6. Petition is partly allowed. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. 7. Copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Sheristedar, be provided to the learned counsel for the parties to act upon. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)