1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3945 OF 1997. Sayyed Mahammad Aktar Ali, Age major, Occ.Service, R/o Newasa, Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The A.P.M.C.Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar, through its Secretary. 2. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary to Government, Department of Co-operation, Mantralaya, Bombay. ... Mr.Sadashiv S.Shete, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.G.Patil, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for the Respondent No.1. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 29.06.2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai,J.) 1. The petitioner challenges the concurrent orders passed by the Respondent No.1 terminating the services of the petitioner, the order passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner and the order passed by the Respondent No.2, dismissing the Second Appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner who was working as a Clerk with the Respondent No.1, came to be terminated. Being aggrieved thereby an appeal was preferred to the appellate authority. The appellate authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Committee and remanded for fresh consideration to the Respondent No.1. On reconsideration, the Respondent No.1 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed an order of termination. Being aggrieved thereby, appeal was preferred to the Joint Registrar, which was dismissed. Further appeal to the Ministry of Cooperation is also dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby, the Writ Petition is 3 filed. 3. Mr.Shete, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied on the judgment in the case of "Pramod Rajaram Chavan and others Vs. Agricultural Produce Market Committee and another" 1984 (1) Bom.C.R.50. He submits that while considering the validity of Rule 103, the Division Bench has held that when an appellate authority sits in appeal over an order of the original authority, it is required to consider the matter objectively and give reasons for dismissing the appeal. 4. In the present case, it can be seen that taking into consideration the gravity of charges, the petitioner's services came to be terminated. The Respondent No.1 in accordance with Rules while passing the order had given an opportunity of being heard. Not only that but the Resolution to terminate his services came to be passed by the requisite majority as provided under the Rules. The only points for consideration before the appellate authority were 4 as to whether the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing and whether the Resolution was passed by majority as provided by the Rules. The appellate authority found that both these requirements are duly fulfilled and as such taking into consideration the gravity of charges found no reason to interfere with the order of the Respondent. For the same reasons, the Respondent NO.2 also did not find reason to interfere. 5. The scope of interference in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. Unless it is found that the order is in a flagrant violation of the Rules or that the authorities had acted in a arbitrary or perverse manner, it will not be possible for this Court to sit in appeal over the decision of the original authority. As already observed hereinabove, the original authority has followed the mandate of the Rules. No perversity also could be noticed. 5 The petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp394597