Petitioner challenged deregistration of a co-operative society alleging fraud. Court disposed of PIL noting administrative proceedings were pending and declined to comment on validity of inquiry report or deregistration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
JPP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 174 OF 2016
Mr. Dnyaneshwar Vishwanath Jadhav. … Petitioner.
V/s.
Mr. Sharad Dattatraya Jadhav & Ors.
... Respondents.
Mr. S.B. Deshmukh for the Petitioner.
Mr. V.N. Sagare, AGP for the State. Mr. Sanjiv Sawant for Respondent No.10.
CORAM : DR. MANJULA CHELLUR,C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 18, 2017.
P.C. :-
Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the Respondents.
2
Majoor Sanstha Dharangaon (Khadak), Niphad Taluka of Nashik District is formed by the members of same family and even the age of the Respondents is declared falsely. According to the Petitioner, all details with regard to income of the members of the society and other details were wrongly furnished. According to the Petitioner, a complaint came to be lodged on 5 May 2015 to the District Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik which came to be forwarded to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Based on that complaint, a notice was given to the Chairman and Secretary of the said society and reply of the Chairman of the said society also came to be made. One Mr. S.S. Gangurde was appointed to inspect the said society and submit a report. According to the Petitioner, on perusal of the material obtained under the Right to Information Act, he came to know various illegalities and fraudulent activities committed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 10. He has approached this Court seeking logical conclusion of the said enquiry initiated against the Respondents.
3
after losing the election, the father of the Petitioner is bent upon troubling the Respondents and they keep on lodging one after another complaint against Respondent Nos.1 to 10 and the society.
4
opinion that nothing can be done in the present petition except opining that the Divisional Authority shall dispose of the matter in accordance with the procedure contemplated. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion so far as the validity of the report of the Inquiry Officer or the orders de-registering the society is concerned.
N.M. JAMDAR, J. CHIEF JUSTICE
Mr. Dnyaneshwar Vishwanath Jadhav
Mr. Sharad Dattatraya Jadhav
DR. MANJULA CHELLUR
N.M. JAMDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
