1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3229 OF 2010 Rajabhau s/o Raghunathrao Munde, Aged 50 years, Occu.Agril., R/o Wadvani, Taluka Wadvani, District Beed .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Latur, District Latur 3. Shri Dhraiyasheel Sundarrao Solanke, Aged Major, Occu.Agril., R/o Majalgaon, Taluka Majalgaon, District Beed 4. Shri Prakash Sundarrao Solanke, Aged Major, Occu.Agri.& Minister, R/o Majalgaon, Taluka Majalgaon, District Beed 5. The Beed District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Beed Through its Manager .. RESPONDENTS Shri R.N.Dhorde, Advocate holding for Shri P.S.Dighe, Advocate for petitioner Shri N.B.Khandare, Govt.Pleader for respondent Nos.1, 2 Shri S.B.Talekar, Advocate for respondents 3 and 4 Shri D.J.Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent No.5 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 15th April 2010 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 16th April 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for quashing and setting aside a show-cause notice dated 9.3.2010 issued by respondent No.2 under Section 73FF (1) (i) (c) (ii) and 78 (1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. In the alternative the petitioner prays that the order passed by respondent No.2 in the proceedings relating to the show-cause notice, if adverse, should not be acted upon for a period of fifteen days. 3. During the course of hearing Shri R.N.Dhorde, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted before us that pursuant to the receipt of the impugned show-cause notice the petitioner has submitted his reply and the hearing has been concluded by 3 the respondent and the proceedings are now closed for passing necessary orders. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us no interference is called for in respect of the issuance of the show-cause notice nor is it appropriate for us to judge the various submissions urged before us by the learned Counsel for the parties in respect of merits of the petition. Even otherwise, it is not disputed before us that the authority has issued the show- cause notice lacs jurisdiction and consequently this petition, therefore, insofar as prayer clause (B) is concerned is liable to be dismissed. 4. Shri Talekar, learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 by referring to the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondents has urged before us that the allegations of mala fides which are levelled against respondent No.4 are unfounded and baseless. The learned Counsel for respondents has taken us through the various averments made by respondents 3 and 4 in the affidavit- in-reply on behalf of the respondents. It is urged before us that the grounds urged in the petition, particularly that the present show-cause notice is a sequel to the earlier show-cause notice and that the same grounds are urged in the earlier show-cause notice which have been urged in the subsequent show-cause notice are not correct. Since we are not inclined to entertain the petition in respect of prayer clause (B) to the petition, we refrain 4 from making any observations in respect of the merits of the controversy that is involved. To reiterate again the proceedings relating to the impugned show-cause notice are now closed for orders and any observations made by us touching the merits of the matter is likely to be affect not only to present show-cause notice but also to other alternate remedies which the parties may resort to. 5. In respect of the submission of alternate remedies which is advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Talekar, learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 has urged that the allegations made against the petitioner in show-cause notice are extremely serious and allegations in respect of forgery, misappropriation etc. alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 that in such circumstances this Court should be loath to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner. 6. Since we are not inclined to entertain the petition in respect of prayer clause (B) to the and in the light of several such orders passed by us, we are inclined to allow this petition in terms of prayer clause (C) with the alternate relief by directing the respondents not to give effect to an order, if passed in the proceedings relating to show-cause notice issued to the petitioner 5 and if adverse to the interest of the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to avail the alternate remedies available to the petitioner in law. We hasten to clarify that the authority entertaining either an appeal or a revision against the order passed pursuant to the show-cause notice shall decide the question of grant of any interim relief independently and on its own merits uninfluenced by the fact that we have directed that the adverse order should not be given effect to for a period of fifteen days. 7. Resultantly, this writ petition partly succeeds. This writ petition stands dismissed in respect of prayer clause (B) to the petition and is allowed in respect of prayer clause (C) to the petition with no order as to costs. 8. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms. 9. Copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar of this Court be provided to the learned Counsel for the parties to act upon. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/3229.10wp)