Disposed

Rajendar Damodar Sawant and 14 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtr and 7 Ors.

Bombay HC7 Jul 2010WP/667/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioners sought directions under Article 226 for the State of Maharashtra to initiate action against certain society members for failing to execute a bond under Sections 73 and 78 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the competent authority to complete the inquiry and take appropriate action within three months of the judgment. No costs.

Rajendar Damodar Sawant and 14 Ors. Vs the State of… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2010)

WP,667/2010

acd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 667 OF 2010

¶6

Rajendra Damodar Sawant & Ors.

¶7

...Petitioners.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶10

...Respondents.

¶11

Mr. Amol K. Tembe, for the Petitioners. Ms. S.M. Dandekar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. M.R. Phal, for Respondent No.3. Ms. Sunita Sonawane, for Respondent No.4,5, and 8. Mr. Mahesh Menon, for the Intervener.

¶12

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶13

DATE : 7^th JULY. 2010.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

1] The petitioners before this Court are the members of respondent no.3-Co-Operative Hsg.Scy. Ltd duly registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960[in short ‘the said Act’]. The second respondent is a officer appointed under the said Act to take appropriate action if he comes across violation and/or breaches of the said Act and Rules by the members/officer bearers of Co-Operative Societies like the respondent no.3-society.

¶16

¶17

WP,667/2010

¶18

2] The petitioners had made a complaint dated 25.11.2009 complaining that the second respondent should initiate steps under section 78 read with section 73(1AB) of the said said Act and to take appropriate action because respondent nos.4 to 8 have failed to execute the bond contemplated by the sections in question.

¶19

3] A show cause notice dated 18.12.2009 has been issued by the Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies(i.e. 2^nd respondent). However, the grievance of the petitioners is that the matter has not proceeded beyond issuance of show cause notice. The second respondent has failed to take any action against these members and therefore the petitioners have approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying issuance of appropriate writ or direction to the authority to act in accordance with law.

¶20

4] Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that the petition can be disposed of with a direction to the second respondent/competent authority to act in furtherance of the subject show cause notice and complete the inquiry initiated by it within three months from today. In other words, the authority should

¶21

¶22

WP,667/2010

¶23

take appropriate action in pursuance of the show cause notice within this period, after hearing the affected parties.

¶24

5] We have expressed no opinion on the merits of the controversy, and particularly whether there is any violation of the statutory provision in question, and all contentions in that behalf are kept open.

¶25

6] Petition stands disposed of with above directions. No costs.

¶26

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

Rajendar Damodar Sawant and 14 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtr and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendar Damodar Sawant and 14 Ors. v. the State of Maharashtr and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishwanath D Borkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Taranath Sunder Shetty Vs the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and 7 Ors.

Girreddy Suryanarayan Reddy Vs Chief Commissioner for Persons With Disabilities and 9 Ors.

Sarika W/O. Ajay Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. P.M. Shah and Co. and Anr. Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.

Dr. Abhishek Pareek and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.