Disposed

Pandit Dindayal Upadhaya Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Shahada v. the Divisional Jt. Registrar, Co-Op Soc. Nashik and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Feb 2013WP/154/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that a report of loss under section 83 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is an opinion, not a direction, so no writ jurisdiction arises under Article 227. The writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn. No costs.

What the court decided

Pandit Dindayal Upadhaya Nagari Sahakari… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 W.P. 154.2013

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 154 OF 2013

¶4

Pandit Dindayal Upadhaya Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Shahada V/s The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-Op. Societies, Nashik & Ors.

¶5

Office Notes,Office	Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of
Coram,appearances,	................................
Court's orders or	CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.
directions and
Registrar's orders	DATE : 21/02/2013

¶6

Mr. V.D.Hon, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.B.Pulkundwar, A.G.P. for the State. Mr. P.P.Chavan, Advocate for Resp. No. 3.

¶7

PER COURT :

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶9

The petitioner assails the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Shahada [ For short, ' Assistant Registrar ' ] in an enquiry U/s 83 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act [ For short, ' M.C.S. Act ' ] and the order passed by the Revisional authority dismissing the Revision.

¶10

Mr. Hon, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Assistant Registrar has concluded that the petitioner is liable to pay ` 4,00,000/- [ Rupees Four Lacs only ] with interest to the

¶11

2 W.P. 154.2013

¶12

respondent No. 3. According to the learned counsel, the respondent No. 3 has also instituted the proceedings U/s 101 of the M.C.S. Act. The order passed by the Assistant Registrar amounts to direction against the petitioner thereby curbing the defence available to the petitioner and further enquiry U/s 88 of the M.C.S. Act.

¶13

Mr. Chavan, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that the observations of the Assistant Registrar in its order dated 25/06/2010 up-held by the revisional authority is an opinion and not the direction. As such the petitioner can not agitate about the same. It is not the case of the petitioner that the report is perverse. According to the learned counsel, no case for interference is made out.

¶14

With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the impugned order.

¶15

The enquiry U/s 83 of the M.C.S. Act was conducted by the Assistant Registrar and the Assistant Registrar has observed that as there is no direct or indirect loss at the behest of the members of the managing committee, no question of enquiry U/s 88 of the M.C.S. Act arises. In fact, vide the order dated 25/06/2010, the Assistant Registrar has ruled out further enquiry U/s 88 of the M.C.S. Act. The observations made by the Assistant Registrar in

¶16

3 W.P. 154.2013

¶17

the said report is an opinion.

¶18

If the respondent No. 3 has initiated the proceedings U/s 101 of the M.C.S. Act against the petitioner, the petitioner will have all the opportunities and the defences as are permissible in the said proceedings. Naturally, the present report will not affect the quasi judicial proceedings U/s 101 of the M.C.S. Act.

¶19

In view of the above, no case for interference is made out in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

Mr. Hon, the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of this, seeks leave to withdraw the Writ Petition.

¶21

The Writ Petition as such is disposed of as withdrawn. No costs.

¶22

[ S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶23

KNP/W.P. 154.2013

Pandit Dindayal Upadhaya Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Shahada v. the Divisional Jt. Registrar, Co-Op Soc. Nashik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Pandit Dindayal Upadhaya Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Shahada v. the Divisional Jt. Registrar, Co-Op Soc. Nashik and 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

Radha Gokul Bhondve Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Suresh Bhimrao Jagdale Vs Vishnu Shridhar Mehunkar and Ors.

Pushpa Dyaneshwar Mahajan and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Vs Balaji Vithalrao Shinde

Pramod Jaichand Sand Vs Rajani Ranjan Khanolkar and Ors.

Bhagwan Mhasu Pawar Vs Janabai Arjun Hulgunde