{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5661 OF 2009 1. Amarsinha Shivajirao Pandit R/o ‘Shivchatra’ Subhash Road Beed, Dist-Beed 2. Mangala @ Prerna Sundarrao More R/o ‘Deepak’ 40/1, Barshi Road, Beed, Dist-Beed 3. Latabai Vasantrao Sanap R/o Raimoha, Tq-Shirur Dist-Beed 4. Ramrao Pandharinath Aghav R/o Sardgaon, Post-Mandav Tq-Parli-Vaijnath, Dist-Beed 5. Madhukar Pandurang Dhakne R/o Bavi, Tq-Shirur Dist-Beed 6. Sau.Kiran Arunrao Ingle R/o Rajegaon, Tq-Majalgoan, Dist-Beed PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Cooperation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Latur Dist-Latur RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.V.D.Salunke, Advocate for petitioners Mr.V.H.Dighe, AGP for respondents No.1 and 2 ....... {2} [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 27th August 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, 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. By the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the proposed order, likely to be passed on the basis of notice dated 07.08.2009 issued u/s 78 (1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, for a period of four weeks, to enable the petitioners to avail statutory remedies. 3. The petitioners, who are directors of Beed District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., are facing show cause notice u/s 78 (1) of the Cooperative Societies Act, as to why the Managing Committee shall not be superseded. The said notice states that an inquiry committee u/s 89- A of the Cooperative Societies Act, was appointed, which has conducted enquiry in respect of the transactions of the said Bank during the period 01.04.2006 to 31.12.2008. Accordingly, on the basis of the said inquiry, the show cause notice has been issued. According to the petitioners out of the said period of the inquiry, the petitioners were directors of the said Bank only for a period of 7 months and as such the proposed action against the newly elected directors is drastic. Hence, immediately after receipt of the said notice, one of the director Sau. Mangala More, gave {3} reply to the said notice on 12.08.2009 and requested that until the rectification report is submitted against the inquiry report, no final/ conclusive action be taken u/s 78 against the present petitioners. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that after the reply came to be filed by Sau.Mangala More to the said show cause notice, the proceedings are pending for orders. Therefore, it is urged that it may be directed that the order, if adverse to the interest of the petitioners, is passed, the same should not be enforced for a period of 4 weeks to enable the petitioners to avail remedy of appeal under the provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. 5. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we allow the present petition with the directions that in the event any adverse order, to the interest of the petitioners, is passed by the respondents, the same shall not be given effect for a period of four weeks after passing of the same to enable the petitioners to file appropriate appeal. We however, make it clear that in the event the petitioners file application for stay, the appellate authority shall decide the same uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp5661-09