1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3035 of 2010 Shri Komire Venkayya Durgayya ..vs.. Divisional Jt.Registrar, Co-Op.Soc. And ors. WRIT PETITION NO.3036 of 2010 Madebiramalla ..vs..Divisional Jt.Registrar, Co-Op.Soc. And ors. WRIT PETITION NO.3037 OF 2010 Shrihari N.Bhandari ..vs.. Divisional Jt.Registrar, Co-op.Soc. And ors. WRIT PETITION NO.3038 of 2010 Arigela M.Malayya ..vs.. Divisional Jt.Registrar, Co-Op.Soc. And ors. WRIT PETITION NO.3039 of 2010 Shri Shana G.Venkateshwear ..vs.. Divisional Jt.Registrar, Co-Op.Soc. And ors. WRIT PETITION NO.3041 of 2010 Pentaji R.Talandi ..vs.. Divisional Jt.Registrar, Co-Op.Soc. And ors. WRIT PETITION NO.3042 of 2010 Gundaboina R.Madanaiah ..vs.. Divisional Jt.Registrar, Co-Op.Soc. And ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.D.V.Siras, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.Mujumdar AGP for resp.no.1 and 2. Mr.S.S.Joshi Adv. for respondent no.3. 2 CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 31, 2010. Heard Advocate Siras, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Mujumdar, learned AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2 in all matters and Adv.S.S.Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no.3 in all matters. Short contention of Advocate Siras is that only copy of show cause notice under Section 78(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act has been forwarded to Federal Society and that does not constitute effective consultation. He has relied upon the Division Bench Judgments of this court reported at 1987 Mh.L.J.,474 (Suresh Dyandeo Khumkar and ors. ..vs.. State of Mah. and ors.) and 1990 Mh.L.J. 925 (Pundlik Kadhav ..vs.. Distt.Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chandrapur). He has further pointed that even the copy of show cause notice under Section 78(1) of the M.C.S.Act was forwarded not to the federal Society as such but only to its General Manager. According to him, the consultation is to be with the federal bank i.e. its Managing Committee. Learned AGP has relied upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this court reported at 1996 (1) Mh.L.J. Page 616 (Ashok Ambadasrao Lawand and anr. ..vs.. State of Mah. and ors.). He stated that forwarding copy of show cause notice is sufficient compliance. He further points out that in present facts copy of enquiry report, on the basis of which action was initiated, has also been forwarded to Federal Society. The said 3 society was expressly called upon to demand any other information if required by it to form its opinion. No information was demanded by Federal Society. According to learned AGP, therefore, this constitutes effective consultation. With the assistance of respective learned counsel for the parties, I have perused papers. The Division Bench Judgment of this court in Suresh Dyandeo Khumkar and ors. ..vs.. State of Mah. and ors (supra) clearly holds that mere forwarding of copy of show cause notice and not sending copy of reply submitted thereto by delinquent to Federal Society is not sufficient to constitute effective consultation. The Judgment has been followed in Pundlik Kadhav ..vs.. Distt.Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chandrapur. In 1996 (1) Mh.L.J.page 616 (supra), learned Single Judge has noticed that the date of receipt of advance and date of its refund were not in dispute and hence relevant material supplied to Federal Society was found to be sufficient. It is, therefore, apparent that there, there was no dispute about the dates. In present facts, the respective petitioners are challenging the relevant assertions in show cause notice and are contending that they have not incurred any disqualification. It is, therefore, clear that copy of reply to show cause notice submitted by respective petitioner needed to be forwarded to the Federal Society. The Federal Society may place it before the competent Committee and communicate its opinion, if any, in the matter to respondent no.2 – Assistant Registrar. Hence, impugned order passed under Section 78(1) by Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Society on 30/1/2010 in all 4 matters are quashed and set aside. Respondent no.2 Assistant Registrar is directed to forward copy of reply received by him from the petitioner to Federal Society for its consideration by appropriate Committee. The Assistant Registrar shall give time of two weeks to said Federal Society to submit its response, if any, back to him and thereafter shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The entire process in this respect shall be completed as early as possible and in any case within period of eight weeks from today. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs. JUDGE chute