- 1 - 914.wp2226.11 skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2226 OF 2011 Anant Damodar Sheth ..Petitioner -Versus- The Annasaheb Sawant Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. Mahad & Anr. ..Respondents .......... Mr.R.M.Haridas for the Petitioner. Mr.Kishor Patil for Respondent No1. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. .......... CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATE : 17TH MARCH 2011. P.C. 1 Heard Mr.Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Kishor Patil for respondent no.1 and Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP for respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2 By his order dated 1st March 2011, respondent no.2 gave directions to respondent no.1 under Section 79(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) to terminate - 2 - 914.wp2226.11 services of the petitioner. It is also informed that failure to comply with these directions will entail an action under Section 79 (2) and (3) of the said Act. 2 The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal under Section 152 of the said Act before the Minister for Co-operation Government of Maharashtra alongwith an application for stay. 3 It is the grievance of the petitioner that the said appeal along with the application for stay is not decided as the Minister is busy in Assembly session and there is nobody to pass the orders on the said appeal as well as stay application. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, Mr.Haridas pointed out that the orders of respondent no.2 are beyond the scope of the provisions of Section 79(1). He also pointed out that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice. He relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in case of “Pravinkumar R. Salian Vs. Chief Minister and Minister of Co- operation, Bombay & Others, reported in 2004(2) Mh.L.J., 12” in this regard. 4 Mr.Patne, learned AGP appearing for respondent nos. 3 and 4 on the contrary supported the impugned order and submitted that since the - 3 - 914.wp2226.11 appeal is pending before the Minister, Cooperation, the direction may be given to dispose of the said appeal and application expeditiously. 5 In the above circumstances, in my opinion, the petition can conveniently be disposed of by passing following order : O R D E R (i) The Minister for Cooperation, Government of Maharashtra is directed to hear and dispose of the petitioner’s appeal alongwith civil application challenging the order impugned in this petition, copy of which is annexed at Exh ‘E’ [page 35] as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) During the pendency of the said appeal, the effect, operation and implementation of the order passed by respondent no.2 directing respondent no.1 to terminate the services of the petitioner is stayed. In the event the outcome of the said appeal is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, the same shall not be given effect for a period of two weeks from the date of the communication thereof to the petitioner. [ RANJIT MORE, J. ] -