Disposed

The State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others v. Vijaysing Kisansingh Pardeshi

Bombay HC7 May 2026CA/9447/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging action arising from a co-operative society audit and Section 83 notice were not entertained since the Joint Registrar had dismissed the petitioner's revision petition after hearing him. Petitioner permitted to file fresh reply with additional documents; enquiry authority directed to decide within two months.

What the court decided

AI extract

The State of Maharashtra through Its Principal… — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:21895

¶2

937-WP-6420-18.odt

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

937 WRIT PETITION NO. 6420 OF 2018

¶6

Vijaysing Kisansing Pardeshi VERSUS

¶7

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶8

WITH

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 771 OF 2017

¶10

Vijaysing Kisansing Pardeshi VERSUS

¶11

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

¶12

WITH

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO. 1579 OF 2019

¶14

Vijaysing Kisansing Pardeshi VERSUS

¶15

The Joint Registrar Co Operative Societies Mumbai And Others

¶16

Mr. P.D. Pachate, Advocate for Petitioner in all WPs.

¶17

Mr. A.V. Hon for Respondent No. 7 to 14 IN WP/6420/18 and for Respondent No.1 in WP/1579/2018

¶18

Mr. G.K. Naik Thigale, Advocate for Respondent No.5 in WP/771/2017 Mr. R.B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondents-State in all WPs

¶19

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 07 MAY, 2026

¶20

PER COURT :

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for respective parties at length.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

¶23

submitted objections to the audit report before the Special Auditor, Class-I.

¶24

After considering the entire record, the Special Auditor prepared a detailed

¶25

937-WP-6420-18.odt 2

¶26

rectification report under Section 82 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, “the Act”). However, without considering the same, notice under Section 83 of the Act came to be issued calling upon the petitioner to file a reply and, pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a reply. Before passing of any order thereon, the petitioner approached the Joint Registrar (Dairy) by filing Revision Petition No.1 of 2015. The Joint Registrar (Dairy) dismissed the same by holding that the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petitions. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh reply and to place additional documents on record.

¶27

It is expected that the authority conducting the enquiry shall consider entire the record and documents submitted by the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

¶28

The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of uploading of this order.

¶29

The writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶30

Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶31

[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE

¶32

S P Rane

The State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others v. Vijaysing Kisansingh Pardeshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others v. Vijaysing Kisansingh Pardeshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Balasaheb Vishwanath Shinde vs the Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Co. Thr Ex. Engineer, Medium Project Osmanabad and Ors.

The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Co. Thr Ex. Engineer, Medium Project Osmanabad and Ors. vs Gokul Vishwanath Shinde and Anr.

The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Co. Thr Ex. Engineer, Medium Project Osmanabad and Ors. vs Balasaheb Vishwanath Shinde.

Pandit Ramchandra Arane vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Isaq Rahimsaheb Ansari vs the Divisional Controller Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Nanded

Sunil Shivajirao Biradar (Yenkikar) and Others vs the State of Maharashtra