-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.1014 of 2008 Paresh Govind Kulkarni ..Petitioner vs. 1. Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Coop.Societies & anr. ..Respondents Shri P.M.Huddar for petitioner. Smt.P.S.Cardozo, A.P.P. for respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 14th February, 2008 14th February, 2008 14th February, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent no.2 Authorised Officer on an application dated 9th June, 2007. It is the case of the petitioner that an application was filed by him that the preliminary issue be decided in respect of the jurisdiction and maintainability of the enquiry against the employees/officers mentioned above. It is the case of the petitioner that he is one of such employees. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended before me that the case of the petitioner in the application is that the petitioner is an employee of Suvarna Sahakari -2- Bank Ltd. It is his case that if the Bank has suffered any losses or damages, then, such persons who are part of or have taken part in organisation or management of the society alone can be proceeded against. The petitioner is neither the Director nor he has taken part in the management of the society. 3. His case is that he is an employee whose service conditions are governed by the certified Standing order approved by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. In such circumstances, considering his limited role and his designation, he could not have been proceeded against. 4. That objection has been over ruled by respondent no.2 erroneously, according to the petitioner. Reliance is placed upon a decision of the learned single Judge of this Court reported in 2003(4) All Maharashtra Reporter 1121 (Shriram Dhonduji Raut Vs.Bahu Uddesiya Sahakari Sanstha Virsi and ors.) 5. A request of the petitioner before the Authorised Officer was that the preliminary issue be framed about his jurisdiction to -3- proceed against the petitioner and similarly placed employees. That request has been turned down and that is how the subject petition. 6. After having perused the petition and annexures thereto including the impugned order, so also the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel, I am of the view that the Authorised Officer is right in rejecting the request in as much as nothing has been shown to me which mandates that the enquiry officer should frame any preliminary issue in such an enquiry. Further, there was no material placed before him to show that the ingredients of section 88 are not attracted in as much as the petitioner is not a person who has taken part in the organisation or the management of the society., As and when such material is placed on record I have no doubt in my mind that the grievance of the present petitioner that no proceedings under section 88 can be initiated against him can be definitely looked into. However, there is no compulsion on the Authorised officer to frame the preliminary issue in such proceedings. The entire attempt appears to be to some how stall and delay the enquiry before the Enquiry Officer which attempt has been rightly discouraged. -4- There is no need to interfere with the petition at this stage. Petition is dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)