1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3837 OF 2010 Shahaji S/o Balaji Mohite } Age : 35 Yrs., Occ. : Agril. } R/o : Dhanora Motya, Tq. Purna, } Dist. : Parbhani. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra } Through Secretary } In the Department of Co-operation, } Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. } 2. The Divisional Joint Registrar } Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad } Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. } 3. The Assistant Registrar } Co-operative Societies, Purna, } Tq. Purna, District : Parbhani. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. A.N.Irpatgire, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.J.Ghute Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 27/04/2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER – P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ for quashing and setting aside the show cause notice issued by respondent no. 3 dated 22/3/2001 under Section 78 (1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ( For short, ‘ the Act ’ ). The petitioner also prays for issuance of necessary directions to the respondents not to implement the order in the event an adverse order is passed against the petitioner pursuant to the proceedings under section 78 (1) of the Act. 3. We need not dilate on the factual aspect of the case as it would suffice to state that the petitioner has been served with the show cause notice under section 78 (1) of the Act. Though Mr. Irpatgire, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued on the merits of the show cause notice by attempting to point out that the issuance of show cause notice is a malafide exercise of powers as the issuance of the show cause notice was preceded by a complaint of the petitioners, according to us, it is not necessary to decide the aforesaid question. The petitioner has adequate remedies available in law of challenging the orders which may be passed by the respondents pursuant to the 3 proceedings of the show cause notice. The petitioner has already rejoined to the show cause notice by submitting his reply to the show cause notice. In the light of the said fact that show cause notice is yet to be decided and the petitioner has alternate remedies available in law of challenging the decision passed pursuant to the show cause notice, we refrain from deciding on merits the challenges raised to the show cause notice. We are , therefore, not inclined to interfere in this petition in respect of prayer clause ‘ B ’ to the petition, which is in respect of challenge to the show cause notice. 4. However, we allow this petition partly in terms of prayer clause ‘ C ’ to the petition by directing the respondents not to give effect to the order, if passed, adverse to the interest of the petitioner, for period of 10 days from the date of its receipt so as to enable the petitioner to avail alternate remedy of challenging the said adverse order. 5. This petition succeeds partly and Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 3837.2010 ( J ) 4