-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.976 of 2008 1. Mr.Ashutosh Dnyaneshwar Agashe and others ..Petitioners vs. 1. The Authorised Officer Shree Suvarna Sahakari Bank Limited and another ..Respondents Shri Y.S.Jahagirdar, Sr.Counsel i/b Shri G.S.Godbole and Shri S.S.Kanetkar for petitioners. Shri R.V.Govilkar for respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 13th February, 2008 13th February, 2008 13th February, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Authorised Officer which has been passed during the course of the proceedings before him. 2. It appears that the Authorised Officer is conducting an Enquiry contemplated by section 88 and aware that he is of Rule 72 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules,1961, he has issued show cause notice to the persons concerned, including the petitioners before me. At the stage at which the matter is before the Authorised Officer, the petitioner filed the -2- said application and prayed that the issue of maintainability and jurisdiction be treated as a preliminary issue and ruling be given thereon before the matter proceeds further. 3. That request has been turned down and that is why the subject writ petition. 4. Shri Jahagirdar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners invites my attention to section 88 and Rule 72 of the Act and Rules and submits that the Authorised Officer has observed that he has issued show cause notices and he is awaiting a reply from the concerned parties and that thereafter he will proceed to frame the charges. Merely because the application and objections raised have been rejected at this stage does not mean that the petitioners are precluded from raising them subsequently and if so raised Shri Jahagirdar’s request is that it be clarified that the Authorised Officer should not influence himself by the observations in the impugned order but decide the matter independently thereof. 5. Shri Govilkar learned Counsel appears for -3- respondent no.2 Bank whereas the Authorised Officer although a respondent to this writ petition, his presence is not required in the light of the order that I proposed to pass in the writ petition. 6. It is not necessary to interfere with the order under challenge but the clarification sought by Shri Jahagirdar can always be granted. Accordingly, it is directed that if the petitioners in their reply to the show cause notice raise an objection with regard to the maintainability of the proceedings so also the jurisdiction of the Authorised Officer, then, all such pleas must be gone into and decided by the Authorised Officer in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned order. With this clarification the writ petition is dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)