Disposed

Shri. Ramdas Ramchandra Dhamankar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Jun 2013WP/3559/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged cooperative society resolutions inconsistent with Government notifications and sought directions to the Deputy Registrar. Court held alternate remedy exists under Section 91 for resolutions, but granted direction to Deputy Registrar to decide representation within three months after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.6 (Deputy Registrar) to decide petitioner's representation within three months after giving hearing to petitioner and Respondent No.7.

Shri. Ramdas Ramchandra Dhamankar Vs State of… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

(WP 3559 of 2013)

¶2

VAT

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.3559 OF 2013

¶6

Ramdas Ramchandra Dhamankar ...Petitioner Vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

¶9

Mr.Rahul Karnik with Mr. Rupesh Jagtap for Petitioner Mr.Raja Ghadge for Respondent No.7 ***

¶10

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, AND Smt. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ.

¶11

DATE : JUNE 11, 2013

¶12

P.C.

¶13

By this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is firstly challenging the resolutions which are passed by Respondent No.7 Society, which according to the Petitioner, are contrary to the Resolutions and Notifications which have been issued from time to time. The second prayer is that a direction may be given to Respondent No.6 i.e. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society to decide his representation within a time bound period; and, thirdly, he is seeking consequential

¶14

order for directing the Respondents to take action against the persons, who have become members of Respondent No.7 Society

¶15

1/2

¶16

(WP 3559 of 2013)

¶17

though they are not eligible to become members in view of the Government Resolutions.

¶18

In our view, so far as the prayer clause (a) is concerned, this relief cannot be granted by this Court since the Petitioner has an alternate remedy of approaching the Co-operative Court by filing a dispute under section 91 of the Co-operative Societies Act. However, so far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, since the only relief claimed by the Petitioner is a direction to Respondent No.6 to decide his representation, the said relief can be granted. Therefore, we direct Respondent No.6 to decide the representation made by the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, within a period of three months from today after giving hearing to the Petitioner and Respondent No.7. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶19

Vaishali Tikam

¶20

2/2

Shri. Ramdas Ramchandra Dhamankar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Ramdas Ramchandra Dhamankar v. State of Maharashtra 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

Sudhakar Bhojaya Sheetty Vs Chief Officer Nallasopara Municipal Council

Smt. Shakuntala Dnyandeo Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Shakuntala Dnyandeo Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Peres Pezarkar Vs the Shipping Corporation of India and Ors.

Pratap Baburao Sarnaik Vs the Principal Secretary-I, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shri. Nitendrasingh Kumarsing Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Additional Chief Secretary, Home Dept and Anr.