1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2077 OF 2010. The Nagpur Mahanagarpalika Karmachari Sahakari Bank -: versus :- State of Maharashtra and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JUNE 30, 2010. Heard Shri M.V. Samarth, learned counsel for petitioners, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Contention is, that notice under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, issued on 21.03.2010 by respondent no.2 is because of the pressure and influence of respondent no.3 Hon'ble Minister. The representation made by some of the Directors of petitioner Bank to Hon'ble Minister on 13.12.2009 is being pointed out as proof of such pressure. It is further pointed out that after receipt of said communication from Hon'ble Minister, the enquiry has been ordered. Reliance is being placed upon judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at (2009) 7 SCC 69 (Commissioner of Income Tax .vrs. Greenworld Corporation); AIR 1970 SC 1896 (The Purtabpur Company Ltd. .vrs. Cane Company Ltd.) and judgment of learned Single Judge of this 2 Court reported at 2001 [3] BCR 8 (Yusuf Khan Mahboob Khan .vrs. Raizuddin Allauddin and others), to contend that notice for action under Section 83 impugned before this Court is void ab-initio. Attention is also invited to the provisions of Section 83[1] of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act to urge that action thereunder is possible either suo motu or upon application moved by 1/3rd of the members. It is argued that none of these requirements are satisfied in the present matter. Learned A.G.P. appearing for respondents no.1 and 2 is relying upon the reply affidavit filed by respondent no.2 in the matter to urge that petition is misconceived. The representation dated 13.12.2009 or 16.12.2009 addressed to respondent no.3 carries at its top a hand written endorsement by the Hon'ble Minister asking respondent no.2 to enquire and to report. The communication dated 11.01.2010 issued by respondent no.2 to the Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner mentions the representation dated 13.12.2009 only. The said communication only notes that the said representation is addressed to the Hon'ble Minister. Further it is also stated that the office of respondent no.2 had already called for the explanation in this respect on 21.12.2009. On 11.01.2010 the reply of petitioner Bank on issues raised in representation was called for within 8 days. This communication dated 21.12.1999 is also not produced by the petitioners before this Court. The perusal of notice dated 31.03.2010 shows that it makes reference to representation dated 13.12.2009 and to the explanation furnished by the petitioner Bank on 3 three dates and to other correspondence and then it shows that a preliminary hearing was conducted on 17.03.2010. The documents furnished by the petitioner Bank were scrutinized and respondent no.2 has recorded a prima facie finding that there was negligence in discharging the obligations on the part of the petitioner. Because of this preliminary finding, respondent no.2 found it necessary to verify the matter in detail and hence enquiry under Section 83 has been ordered. Thus, this notice dated 31.03.2010 no where discloses that it is under the influence of respondent no.3. On the contrary, it clearly shows that there is independent application of mind by respondent no.2 and he has suo motu found it necessary to conduct inquiry under Section 83. In any case the endorsement made by the Hon'ble Minister is only to enquire and to submit report. The Hon'ble Minister has not taken any particular stand in the matter and has not called for action under Section 83 of the Act. Shri Samarth, learned counsel has contended that the Hon'ble Minister is a revisional authority under Section 154 of the Act, however, by making above endorsement, I, do not find that the said position is being compromised in any way. In view of this finding, it is not necessary to consider the judgments on which Shri Samarth, learned counsel has placed reliance. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. 4 JUDGE Rgd.