1 wp866.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 866 OF 2011 The Dhule and Nandurbar District Primary Teachers, Co-operative Credit Society, Dhule ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.S. Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. N.N. Desale, Advocate for respondent no.3. Mr. N.L. Chaoudhari, Advocate for respondent no.4. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 13TH APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : 1. The respondent no.3 society issued show-cause notice to the respondent no.4 as to why his services should not be terminated and that show-cause notice dated 24.11.2010 has been questioned by the said respondent before the respondent no.1- State Government. Hon'ble Minister in that matter on 8th December, 2010 granted stay. Respondent no.3 claiming ignorance of that order, terminated the services of the said respondent no.4 and appointed the present petitioner as his successor Manager. Thereafter, the office of respondent no.1 was 2 wp866.11 again approached by the respondent no.4 and on 22nd December, 2010, the Hon'ble Minister again stayed the order of termination dated 16.12.2010 and made matter returnable on 04.01.2011. 2. The successor Manager has questioned this cognizance taken by the Minister in present Writ Petition. On 04.02.2011, this Court has issued notice for final disposal and stayed further proceedings before the respondent no.1. Accordingly, I have heard Advocates Mr. Patil for petitioner, Mr. N.L. Chaudhari with Advocate Mr. Tiwari for respondent no.4 and Advocate N.N. Desale for respondent no.3. Learned A.G.P. has appeared for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 3. The short question before this Court is whether, under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 direct challenge to show cause notice issued after departmental enquiry by employee of the co-operative society, is possible. According to Mr. Patil, the challenge in Revision under Section 154 can be only to orders or proceedings before sub-ordinate officers i.e. officers of the Co-operative Department. Advocate Mr. Chaudhari states that proceedings of society including departmental enquiry can be questioned under Section 154. Advocate Mr. Chaudhari has further contended that the present 3 wp866.11 petitioner is a new Manager appointed in place of respondent no.4 and therefore, he has no locus to file such petition. It is further urged that Administrators appointed on respondent no.3 Society are all Assistant Registrars and Deputy Registrars of Co-operative society, and therefore, their orders are rightly questioned in Revision under Section 154. 4. Learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 is supporting the impugned order. Advocate Mr. Desale for respondent no.3 Society is supporting the petitioner. He is seeking leave to file reply affidavit or record. 5. Filing of reply by petitioner and the respondent no.3 before the respondent no.1 in Revision under Section 154 is not in dispute. Prayers before this Court are only to quash and set aside the orders dated 08.12.2010 and 22.12.2010 passed by the respondent no.1. Perusal of Section 154 reveals that the powers thereunder can be exercised by the State Government or by Registrar, suomoto or on an application moved. The powers can be exercised after records of any enquiry or proceedings of any matter where any decision or order has been passed by sub-ordinate officer are called, provided no appeal lies against such decision or order. The scope of scrutiny is to satisfy itself as to the legality or 4 wp866.11 propriety of any such decision or order or then to the regularity of such proceedings. Thus, the record of any enquiry or proceedings of any sub-ordinate officer can only be called and subjected to scrutiny. The nature of said record is clear from the exception made in favour of co-operative appellate court because of powers available to it under Section 154 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Thus in revision records and proceedings of Co-operative Court functioning under Section 91 of the M.C.S. Act, 1960 can not be called. 6. Here, the records and proceedings to be called are of respondent no.3 society. Respondent no.3 society is not sub- ordinate officer of respondent no.1. The fact that Administrators appointed on it are either Assistant Registrars or then Joint Registrars by itself does not make that Co-operative society an officer sub-ordinate to respondent no.1. 7. However as the parties have filed their respective replies before the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.1 is also about to look into this matter, I am not recording any final finding at this stage. 8. It is apparent that the petitioner has been appointed by the 5 wp866.11 respondent no.3-society after alleged termination of respondent no. 4. He has joined the services, and therefore, has necessary locus to approach this Court. Not only this but his employer i.e. respondent no.3 is also supporting his cause before this Court. 9. Hence, I find contention about the locus of the petitioner and maintainability of present Petition by respondent no.4 misconceived. The orders dated 08.12.2010 and 22.12.2010 are already stayed by this Court and said interim orders shall continue. The parties to appear respondent no.1 and address it on the question of maintainability and also on merits. The Respondent no. 1 shall attempt to decide the matter before it as early as possible and in any case by 31.05.2011. The parties should appear before the respondent no.1 on 29th April, 2011 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp866.11