1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.7970 OF 2009 Dr. Daulatrao Sonuji Abher ...Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner of Sugar & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.M.V.Walawalkar, Sr. Counsel i/b. Mr. S.M.Sabrad Advocate for the Petitioner Mr.Nitin Pradhan, Sr. Counsel i/b. Mr. Tejesh Dande Advocate for Respondent No.3 Ms. P.S.Cardoza. A.G.P. CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 20 TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. : 1. The inquiry into certain misappropriation has been directed and pending against the Petitioners since 2003. 2 earlier Writ Petitions have been filed. In the last Writ Petition upon the legal bias of the Inquiry Officer an order passed by him was sought to be interfered with. This Court by its order dated 13th March 2008 refrained from interfering with the orders passed in the inquiry. However the Court allowed the Petitioners to raise all 2 contentions they had in the inquiry. In that Petition, inter alia, the requirement of Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (the Act) came to be contended and were considered. This included the fact that the report, being the audit report in this case, was to be considered for seeing that the person proceeded against has committed the acts listed in Rule 72(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules (the Rules) and thereafter the charge can be framed. 2. The charge was framed. The inquiry was to proceed. The charge was not interfered with. The inquiry was directed to be proceeded. Consequently, the provisions of Section 88 were complied, sought to be challenged, and were considered in the earlier Writ Petition. 3. Pursuant to liberty granted to the Petitioners to raise all their contentions they made application before the Inquiry Officer and raised contentions. Mr. Walawalkar on behalf of the Petitioners stated that the essential contention is that the second issue raised by the Inquiry Officer relating to the contention that the charge was not legal and proper has not been correctly considered and that shows his legal bias and therefore, the charges are not legal and proper. Mr. Walawalkar went through the relevant charges and the observations of the Inquiry Officer in the said charge which is in fact shows how and why the charges came to be levied. The charges are seen to be legal and valid. They do not require any interference whatsoever. 4. The inquiry which is pending since 2003 shall proceed expeditiously. 3 5. The Inquiry Officer shall fix a date of hearing and proceed day-to-day. 6. The Petitioners apply for continuation of the Ad-interim order which is opposed by the Respondents. However since the Ad-interim order is passed it shall be continued for 2 weeks. 7. The Writ Petition is dismissed. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)