1 WP 5451.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5451 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.A.B.Girase, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Korde, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for State. ............................ CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 25/07/2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. 2. The petitioners impugn the notice issued to them under Rule 72 ( 2 ) of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Rules [ For short, ‘ said Rules ’ ]. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the said notice is not in consonance with law. Even the authority have made up their mind. The petitioners were not the members of the managing committee elected in the year 2008 which is subsequently superseded. Even no documents which are asked are being tendered to the petitioners. If law prescribes that a particular 2 WP 5451.2011 act is to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner itself. But, the authorities while dealing with the proceedings, have flagrantly violated the procedure. 3. The learned Assistant Govt. Pleader contends that the impugned notice is merely a show cause notice. Proper enquiry would be conducted and then suitable orders would be passed. The said show cause notice can not be the subject matter of challenge before this Court. The document sought were under Right to Information Act and as such can not be given. 4. The notice issued under Rule 72 ( 2) of the said Rules is in the shape of show cause notice. This Court in a case of Jyoti W/o Anil Ganeshpure V/s State of Maharshtra and others reported in 2006 ( 2 ) Mh.L.J. - 173 has observed that even such show cause notice would amount to an order. Still, at this stage, it can not be said that the authority has made up his mind. The presumption would be that the authority would follow the proper procedure for arriving at the conclusion. 5. In that light of the matter, I do not feel it appropriate to interfere in the matter at this stage. At the same time, the petitioners are also entitled 3 WP 5451.2011 for the documents on which they would like to place their reliance and the respondents are duty bound to supply the said documents so as to enable the petitioners to take appropriate defence. 6. In the result, I pass the following order : The Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to apply to the respondent for the necessary documents and the respondents shall deliver the copies of the said documents to the petitioners which are in their possession and power. The authorities shall thereafter decide on the basis of the show cause notice and the reply received. In case any order adverse to the interest of the petitioners is passed by the authority pursuant to the impugned show cause notice under Rule 72 ( 2 ) of the said Rules , the said order shall not take effect for the period of ten ( 10 ) days from the service of the said order on the petitioners. 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 5451.2011 4 WP 5451.2011