1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7328 OF 2010 1. Eknath S/o Neminath Akoskar, Age : 62 Years, Occu. : Agril and Director of Maharashtra State, Co-operative Sangh Ltd. Pune, R/o Kolewadi, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Damodhar S/o Narsingrao Patil, Age : 68 Years, Occu. : Agril and Director of Maharashtra State, Co-operative Sangh Ltd. Pune, R/o Bhatangali, Tq. Lohara, Dist. Osmanabad. .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Co-operative and Textile Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Commissioner of Co-operation and Registrar Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3. The Additional Registrar, Vasuli and Niyojan, Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune. 2 4. Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Sangh Ltd., Pune through it's Chief Executive Officer, 5, B. J. Road, Pune - 1. .. Respondents Shri R. T. Nagargoje, Advocate for Petitioners.. Smt. A. V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for Respondents/State. Shri S. S. Phatale, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 16TH AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P. V. HARDAR, J. ) : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners challenge the show cause notice dated 24.06.2010 issued by the respondent No. 3 U/Sec. 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960. The petitioners further pray for staying the effect and operation of the order passed pursuant to the show cause notice if adverse to the interest of the petitioners for a period of 15 days from the date of its receipt. 3 3. According to us, the relief which the petitioners have prayed for vide prayer clause "C" cannot be granted, as the respondent No. 3 has issued a show cause notice and hearing thereof is scheduled for tomorrow. Obviously, petitioners have submitted their reply to the show cause notice. The petitioners have adequate alternate remedies available to them in law for challenging an adverse order if passed pursuant thereof. The petitioners' challenge therefore, to the show cause notice according to us is not maintainable. A reference may usefully be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 440. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain the petition in so far as it relates to the relief sought for at prayer clause "C" to the petition. However, in order to ensure that the petitioners are able to avail the alternate remedies available to them in law and challenge the orders passed by respondent No. 3 pursuant to show cause, if adverse to the interest of the petitioners, we are not inclined to allow this petition in terms of prayer clause "D" to the petition. 4. We accordingly allow this petition to the extent that in the event an order adverse to the interest of the petitioners is passed 4 by the respondent No. 3 pursuant to show cause notice issued by the respondent No. 3, the aforesaid order shall not be given effect to for a period of 15 days in order to enable the petitioners to avail alternate remedies available to the petitioners in law. 4. Rule is thus made absolute on the above said terms with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/Aug.10