1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.28 OF 2009 1) Prakash s/o Mahadev Deshpande, R/o- Court Road, Yawal, Dist-Jalgaon and others. ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Ministry of Co-operation, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. D.K. Kulkarni Advocate for Petitioners. Shri. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri. Amol Sawant Advocate h/f. Shri. M.S. Sonawane Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 28TH JUNE, 2010. 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioners were the directors of Respondent No.4 Kalika Credit Co-operative Society. According to the learned A.G.P, in connection with the audit report and functioning of the said society for the year 2005-2006, a notice was issued, by the office of District Deputy Registrar, to the Petitioners. Some amount was determined as due from the Petitioners. According to the counsel for the Petitioners, the respective amount was paid by the Petitioners with the concerned Authority. The earlier communication which the Petitioners want to be treated as proceedings initiated under Section 88(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short “the said Act”) was issued on 1st October 2007 (Exhibit A). The Petitioner produced copy of Roznama of the said proceedings (Exhibit B). 3 3. The Petitioners now challenge the notice issued under Section 88 (1) of the said Act on the ground that second time such enquiry under Section 88 (1) cannot be initiated on the ground that the liability on the Petitioners was fixed earlier and therefore second time such liability cannot be re- fixed. 4. Original record is placed before us. From the same, we find that the earlier notice dated 1st October, 2007 was not issued by the Officer appointed under Section 88 (1) of the said Act. The learned A.G.P. was fair enough to say that District Deputy Registrar, while issuing such notice dated 1st October 2007, did not mention as to under which provisions of law such notice is issued to the Petitioner. 5. We need not traverse through all the issues raised as the Assistant Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Yawal has issued notice under Section 88 (1) of the said Act to the Petitioners. 4 The consequences of such notice and rights accrued to the parties are well defined under the provisions of the said Act. The parties may avail of such rights as permissible in law. 6. We may observe, in the facts of the case, that in case the enquiry officer fixes monetary liability on the Petitioners, amount earlier deposited by the Petitioners with the District Deputy Registrar, if any, shall be adjusted towards the said liability. We keep all issues open in respect of rights of the parties. The enquiry shall be conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. We direct that the enquiry shall be completed within THREE MONTHS from the date of receipt of this order. The Petitioners undertake to co-operate with the enquiry officer. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JUNE10/wp28.09