1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7629 OF 2008 1. Hemant S/o Ashok Kotecha, Age : 32 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Gut No. 7, Subhash Nagar, Old Dhule, District Dhule. 2. Vijay S/o Shivlal Kotecha, Age : 34 years, Occu. : Business, R/o Phule Colony, Dhule, District Dhule. 3. Mayur Swarupchand Chhajed, Age : 36 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Wakharkar Nagar, Dhule, District Dhule. 4. Sundeep S/o Prakash Kankria, Age : 32 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Gut No. 7, Subhash Nagar, Old Dhule, District Dhule. 5. Pravin S/o Chhaganlal Surana, Age : 38 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Jaihind Colony, Deopur, Dhule, Tal. & Dist. Dhule. 6. Anil S/o Keshrimal Pagariya, Age : 38 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o 16-B, Jaishankar Colony, Chalisgaon Road, Dhule, District Dhule. 7. Mahavir S/o Chabildas Chhajed, Age : 36 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Wakharkar Nagar, Dhule. 2 8. Sau. Pramila W/o Ratanlal Kotecha, Age : Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Gut No. 7, Subhash Nagar, Old Dhule, District Dhule. 9. Ashok S/o Bansilal Kotecha, Age : 53 Yeas, Occu. : Business, R/o Gut No. 7, Subhash Nagar, Old Dhule, District Dhule. .. .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through it's Secretary, Department of Co-operation, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule. 3. The Taluka Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule. 4. S. N. Patil, Authorised Officer, Guru Mahatma Urban Co-operative Credit Society, Dhule. .. .. Respondents Shri Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri K. G. Patil, A. G. P. for the Respondent No. 1 to 3. Shri P. B. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 12TH AUGUST, 2009. 3 ORAL ORDER [ Per B. R. Gavai, J.] : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The grievance raised in the petition is that, an inquiry initiated against the present petitioners under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, by the respondent No. 4, as per the orders passed by respondent No. 2, is being proceed without supplying the necessary documents to the petitioners as demanded. 3. In the reply filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it has been stated that, most of the documents have already been supplied to the petitioners. It is stated that, some of the documents demanded by the petitioners could not be supplied, since the same are seized by the police in connection with the criminal case. It is also stated that, the respondents have requested for return of the said record, seized by the police. 4. It is settled law that, before any action is taken against a person inviting adverse civil consequences, the principles of natural justice are to be followed. Supplying or furnishing of documents on which the authorities rely, while, taking action against a person, is also one of the facets of principles of natural justice. 5. In that view of the matter, we find that, the petition can be 4 disposed of with following directions : i. It is directed that before proceeding with the inquiry under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, against the petitioners, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall give an inspection of the record to the petitioners, after it's receipt from the police authorities. ii. On inspection of record, the documents so demanded by the petitioners would be supplied on payment of necessary charges by the respondents. iii. Rule disposed of in the aforesaid terms. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B. R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/August 09