1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8260 OF 2010 1 Ashok s/o Bajirao Gawade, age: 47 years, Occ: Service, R/o C/o Sant Namdeo Nagar, Dhanora Road, Tq. & District Beed. 2 Smt.Sunanda Chandrakant Dharmadhikari, age: 52 years, Occ: Service, R/o Opposite to Old D.S.P. Office and opposite to Ramnagar, Osmanabad, Tq. & District Osmanabad. 3 Shivaji Dnyanoba Kadam, age: 55 years, Occ: Service, R/o Matoshri Niwas, Trimurti Nagar, Parbhani, Tq. & District Parbhani. 4 Suresh s/o Shankarrao Totawad, age: 57 years, Occ: Service, R/o Totawar Galli, Degloor, Tq.Degloor, District Nanded. Petitioners Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Co-operative Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2 The Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, 2 Central Building, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Employees Co-operative Credit Society, Shakti Sahakar, Station Road, Aurangabad. Respondents Mr.N.R.Pawade, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.D.J.Choudhari, advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 14 th September, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard Shri N.R.Pawade, learned Counsel for petitioners, Shri N.N.Jadhav, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 2 and Shri D.J.Choudhari, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 Petitioners herein are raising exception to the order dated 07.07.2010, passed by the learned Minister of State, Co- operation Department, whereby ad interim stay granted earlier has been vacated. 3 3 It is informed that an appeal is preferred under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, challenging the order passed under Section 78 of the said Act directing removal of petitioners holding them disqualified to continue as members of the Managing Committee of Respondent No.3-Society. After presentation of appeal, initially learned Minister passed an order granting stay to the impugned order on 15.06.2010. The matter was prescribed for further hearing on 07.07.2010 and on the date prescribed, parties to the litigation requested the learned Minister to adjourn the matter. However, on the very first day prescribed for hearing, the learned Minister, while granting adjournment, has directed vacation of ad interim relief. It is recorded in the order that appellants are adopting dilatory tactics and trying to prolong the litigation. 4 The observations made in the impugned order are unwarranted as it was the very first date prescribed in the matter and merely because parties requested the learned Minister to adjourn the matter on the very first day, inference cannot be drawn that appellants are adopting dilatory tactics and are trying to prolong the matter. The appellate authority could have put the parties to terms while granting adjournment in the matter. The order passed by the learned Minister on 07.07.2010 is unsustainable and, therefore, is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4 5 In the result, writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.07.2010, passed by the learned Minister of State, Co-operation Department, is quashed and set aside. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is desirable to direct the appellate authority to decide the appeal itself within specific period. The parties shall appear before the appellate authority on 28.09.2010 and the learned Minister, after extending an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, shall proceed to decide the appeal within a period of six weeks thereafter. Needless to mention that the ad interim relief granted on 15.06.2010 shall remain in operation until decision of the appeal by the learned Minister. 6 Rule is accordingly made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp826010