Disposed

Sachin Ramrao Rohamare v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC29 Jan 2014WP/822/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In writ petition 822 of 2014, the petitioner challenged an ad-interim order staying a proceeding under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, which was allegedly passed without hearing him. The court declined to entertain the petition on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; direction issued to Divisional Joint Registrar to decide the pending revision within one month.

Sachin Ramrao Rohamare Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 W.P. 822.2014

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 822 OF 2014

¶5

Sachin Ramrao Rohamare V/s The State of Mah. & Ors.

¶6

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 : 29/01/2014

¶7

Mr. Sandeep Gorde Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. G.R.Ingole, A.G.P. for the State.

¶8

COURT'S ORDER :

¶9

Mr. Gorde Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that enquiry U/s 83 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 [ For short, ' M.C.S. Act ' ] has been completed. Thereafter, an order is passed U/s 88 of the M.C.S. Act appointing the Enquiry Officer, which is assailed by the respondents before the Divisional Joint Registrar. The petitioner has filed caveat. Though the caveat is filed by the petitioner, the authority passed an interim order granting stay without hearing the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the Divisional Joint Registrar without serving

¶10

2 W.P. 822.2014

¶11

the caveator and without hearing him, could not have passed adinterim order. The said recourse adopted is illegal. The order passed by the authority appointing the Enquiry Officer is the Administrative Order and the same can not be challenged before the Divisional Joint Registrar.

¶12

2. I have gone through the Order.

¶13

The order is ad-interim order which was to remain in force up to 13/01/2013. It is not clear that whether the said order is extended further. Mr. Gorde Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 13/01/2013, he attended the office of the Divisional Joint Registrar. However, the Divisional Joint Registrar was on leave. It is not clear as to whether the said adinterim order was extended further after 13/01/2013 or not. It is said that next date is kept on 17/02/2014.

¶14

Considering the fact that the order passed is an ad-interim order and the petitioner will have every opportunity to contest the said interim application before the Divisional Joint Registrar, I am not inclined to consider the said order on merits. The Divisional Joint Registrar shall decide the said petition filed by the petitioner in the pending Revision expeditiously and preferably within one (1) month.

¶15

3 W.P. 822.2014

¶16

The Writ Petition is disposed off accordingly. No costs.

¶17

[ S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶18

KNP/W.P. 822.2014

Sachin Ramrao Rohamare v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Ramrao Rohamare v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramchandra Dattatrya Bhalerao. Vs Amulchand Keshavji Shaha.(L.Rs.)Santaben and Rasikla

Santosh Vaijnathrao Mundhe Vs Ramesh Uttamrao Mohalkar and Others

Janardhan Ramsingh Mahalpure and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Govindrao Punjaji Gaikwad and Another Vs Sandeep Asaram Wagh

Vilas Hukumchand Gujar and Others Vs Vijay Gulabrao Patil and Others

Pradip Shridharrao Patil Vs Shivraj Limbraj Sangve and Others