1 wp 1141.92 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1141 OF 1992 Sunil S/o Narsingrao Pagote, Age : Major, Occu. : Service and Promoter of proposed Arogya Nagar Gruha Nirman Sanstha, Beed. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader High Court Bench at Aurangabad. 2. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Beed. 3. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad. 4. Sirsath Bhivaji S/o Changoji, Age : Major, Occu. : Service, R/o Panchayat Samiti Quarter, Nagar Road, Beed. .. Respondents Shri C. V. Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. B. Choudhari A.G.P. for the Respondent/State. The Respondent No. 4 served. 2 wp 1141.92 CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 07TH MARCH, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 17.11.1990 passed by the respondent No. 2 and order dated 23.04.1992 passed by the respondent No. 3. 2. The counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the pleadings in the petition and particularly para 10 of the petition and submitted that, the respondent No. 2 issued letter dated 11.07.1990 informing the petitioner that he should remain present on 27.07.1990 for hearing in the matter with the relevant record. In pursuant to notice dated 11.07.1990, the petitioner remained present in the office of respondent No. 2 on 27.07.1990 along with all relevant record from 10.00 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. The petitioner waited for respondent No. 2 in the office. The respondent No. 2 did not turn up for whole day in the office. Therefore, the petitioner had given application on 27.07.1990 to the respondent No. 2. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner stated therein that as per the directions of the respondent No. 2, the petitioner was in the office of respondent No. 2 from 10.00 a.m. to 6.30 p.m., however, the respondent No. 2 was not present. 3 wp 1141.92 It is specific case of the petitioner that, inspite of remaining present on 27.07.1990 and application dated 27.07.1990 mentioning therein that for whole day he was in the office of respondent No. 2 and was waiting his arrival to show the record, the respondent No. 2 did not turn up, the respondent No. 2 on 17.11.1990 passed the order thereby directing the action against the petitioner herein by taking recourse to the Section 146(d) and (e) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and accordingly the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the impugned order dated 17.11.1990 is without any application of mind and without hearing the petitioner. Though the petitioner was called upon by the respondent No. 2 on 27.07.1990, the respondent No. 2 himself was not present in the office. Therefore, it was not open for the respondent No. 2 to pass the impugned order on 17.11.1990 thereby directing the action against the petitioner herein. The counsel further submitted that, the revision was filed against the order passed by the respondent No. 2 before the Joint Divisional Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Aurangabad. However, without appreciating the contention of the petitioner even the revision came to be dismissed by order dated 23.04.1992. Therefore, the counsel for 4 wp 1141.92 the petitioner would submit that, the order dated 17.11.1990 may be quashed and set aside. He further submits that, the petitioner is ready to show the record to the respondent No. 2. However, the respondent No. 2 may give advance notice thereby stating that the petitioner should remain present in the office of respondent No. 2. 3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents/State submitted that, on 17.11.1990 the respondent No. 2 has considered all earlier dates of hearing and also documents submitted by the petitioner and from perusal of the record and case papers, the authority found that the petitioner has misused the funds collected from the members and also land being utilized for his own purpose. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be interfered. 4. Upon hearing the counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader, I am of the opinion that, the date was fixed by the respondent i. e. on 27.07.1990, with due regard to the notice dated 11.07.1990 the petitioner was present in the office of respondent No. 2 from 10.00 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to the petitioner. There is 5 wp 1141.92 no reply filed by the respondents in this petition. Therefore, the pleadings in the petition went unattended. In absence of any reply filed by the respondent, the contention of the petitioner and in particular para 10 is required to be accepted. Once the notice was given by the respondent No. 2 on 11.07.1990 informing the petitioner to attend his office on 27.07.1990 and when the respondent No. 2 himself was not present in the officer for whole day, in that case the respondent No. 2 should have issued fresh notice to the petitioner for further appearance. However, it appears that, suddenly on 17.11.1990 the respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order without even looking to the application filed by the petitioner on 27.07.1990. Therefore, the order impugned in this petition shows total non application of mind on the part of the respondent No. 2. The officers are entrusted with the powers under the provisions of law are supposed to follow the procedure as laid down under the relevant laws and rules. Once the notice was issued on 11.07.1990 and when the petitioner was present on 27.07.1990 for whole day, it was not open for the respondent No. 2 to pass such drastic order on 17.11.1990. The impugned order is high handed and cannot be sustained for a moment. Therefore, the impugned order dated 17.11.1990 passed by the respondent No. 2 and also the order dated 23.04.1992 passed by the 6 wp 1141.92 revisional authority are quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause "B" and stands disposed of. 5. However, it will be open for the respondent No. 2 to issue fresh notice to the petitioner for calling upon him to produce the relevant documents and record in respect of proposed housing society. The counsel for the petitioner assures this Court that, upon receiving notice from the respondent No. 2, the petitioner will respond to such notice. [ S. S. SHINDE, J.] bsb/March 11