1 WP.2349-2011 acd FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2349 OF 2011 Prithviraj Sahebrao Jachak ... Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr. S.S. Patwardhan i/b Chetan G. Patil, for the Petitioner. Mr. V.D. Patil, G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. G.S. Godbole with Ms. Manjiri Parasnis i/b Mr. Pandurang Gaikwad, for Respondent No.4. CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. APRIL 25, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 1 By this Petition, the Petitioner, who is one of the Directors of Respondent No.4-Sugar factory, is seeking directions to Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to initiate action under Section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [for short ‘the Act’] and the Rules framed thereunder against the Board of Directors. 2 WP.2349-2011 2 This prayer is made on two grounds. Firstly, Respondent No.4- Sugar factory, without any legal authority, has been retaining Rs.2000/- from the sugarcane bills of their members with a view to enhance face value of the share from Rs.3000/- to Rs.5000/- , and secondly, on the ground that no action has been taken under Section 79-B of the Act against the members of the Sugar Factory who failed to supply sugarcane for a period of three years. 3 Insofar as the first ground is concerned, Respondent No.4- Sugar factory has filed reply affidavit dated 20.04.2011 stating that it has not made any deductions from the sugarcane bills of those members, including the Petitioner, who objected for such deductions towards share capital, which they propose to enhance from Rs.3000/- to Rs.5000/-. They have further stated that they are deducting the amount from the sugarcane bills as per the directions issued by the Regional Joint Director vide order dated 29.10.2010. Insofar as the Petitioner is concerned, admittedly no deduction from his sugarcane bills has been made by Respondent No.4. None of the members of the Sugar Factory, from whose sugarcane bills such amount has been deducted by Respondent no.4, has made any grievance before this court till this date. In view thereof, in our opinion, this cannot be a ground for initiating any action as contemplated under 3 WP.2349-2011 Section 78 of the Act. 4 Insofar as the second ground is concerned, in the letter dated 12.10.2010 [Exh.’A’ to the Petition] the Petitioner has not given any particulars. According to Respondent no.4, the Petitioner has not submitted a list of the members who defaulted in supplying sugarcane to the factory for a period of three years. In view thereof, we are unable to issue any directions, as sought, on this ground also. However, it is open to the Petitioner to approach the concerned Authority afresh with necessary particulars, including the names of defaulting members, for appropriate action in accordance with law. 5 With these observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. (U. D. SALVI,J.) (D.B. BHOSALE,J)