1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1814 OF 2009 Sau. Chetna Sanjay Phalak and Ors. ....Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents. Shri. V.D. Hon, Advocate for petitioners. Shri. D.R.Kale, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 26th July, 2010. PER COURT : 1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 4.10.2008 passed by the Commissioner for Co-operation/Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune, initiating the proceedings under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') read with Rule 72 of the Rules framed thereunder. This petition also challenges the enquiry report submitted under Section 88 of the said Act on 15.4.2009 by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies to the Commissioner for Co-operation, Co-operative Societies, 2 Maharashtra State, Pune for taking further appropriate action. 2. The initial challenge was regarding non compliance of Rule 72 (3), (4), (5) and (6) of the Rules framed under the said Act in holding an enquiry. It is not in dispute that on 13.1.2009 the charges were framed as required by Rule 72 (3) of the said Rules. The matter was placed for reply of the petitioners on 29.1.2009. The matter was thereafter adjourned for filing reply on 5.2.2009, 13.2.2009, 20.2.2009, 27.2.2009. The affidavit filed by the respondent - Registrar shows that on 13.3.2009 both the Directors were present and they had filed their affidavits on behalf of 11 Directors and Ex-Manager and they had further stated that they had nothing to say further in the matter and hence, the matter was closed for submission of report on 29.3.2009. Accordingly, on 31.3.2009 enquiry was completed and the report was submitted. In view of this, I do not find any substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was non compliance of Rule 72 (3) (4) (5) and (6) of the said Rules. 3. The report has been submitted to the Commissioner on 15.4.2009 after holding an enquiry and pursuant to the show cause notice dated 4.10.2008. The Commissioner is, however, prevented from passing any final order, pending the admission of this petition. The Commissioner has not yet taken any final decision in view of the interim order passed by this Court. The show cause notice and the report are required to be submitted by the Commissioner/Registrar. Hence, the present petition is 3 premature. The Registrar cannot be prevented from passing any order, once it is shown that the provisions of Rule 72 are complied with. If at all the Commissioner takes any action, adverse to the interest of the petitioners, it shall be open for the petitioners to take appropriate remedies to challenge the same. In view of this, the petition is dismissed. It is made clear, this Court has not gone in to the merits of the matter or the findings recorded in the enquiry report. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/wp1814.09