1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1333 OF 2007. Laxmikant S/o Bhagwat Gudmewar and others ... Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.N.Irpatgire, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.D.V.Tele,A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 25.06.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The petition is filed only against show cause notice issued by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Udgir, calling upon the petitioner as to why action may not be taken U/s 78(1) of the MCS Act, 1960. The petitioners 2 alleged that the show cause notice was issued under the political pressure of the Respondent No.5, who is the local MLA. It is not necessary to go into the question of bias at the present. The petitioners were called upon only to explain the lapses which are enumerated in the clauses 1 to 14 of the show cause notice. The show cause notice dated 15.1.2007 (Exh.D) does not contain any substratum to infer that the concerned authority has reached a final conclusion regarding the alleged irregularities/misconduct shown in the notice. The adjudicatory process is yet to begin. The Apex Court in "Union of India Vs. Vicco Laboratories" 2008 (3) ALL MR 453, categorically held that interference at show cause notice stage can not be done in common routine manner. It is observed that normally, the Writ Court should not interfere at the stage of issuance of show cause notice by the authorities. In such a case, the parties get ample opportunity to put forth their contentions before the concerned authorities and to satisfy the concerned authorities about the absence of case for proceeding against the person against 3 whom the show cause notices have been issued. In this view of the matter, I find it difficult to entertain the present Writ Petition. Still, however, the petitioners deserve temporary protection if any adverse action is taken against them by the concerned authority. 3. In the result, the petition is dismissed with direction that the competent authority shall pass self-operative stay order, if any adverse order is rendered against the petitioners, to stay effect of such avertisement order for four(4) weeks thereafter, and shall not immediately appoint any Administrator until expiry of such four (4) weeks period from the date of communication of such adverse order to the petitioners. The petition is accordingly disposed of. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp133307