Bhagwan Pandurang Dinde Sahakari Dudh Vyavsayik Sanstha Maryadit vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

validity of an undated administrative direction/order issued by the Hon’ble Minister, Dairy Development Department, whereby liquidation proceedings against a large number of co-operative milk societies were directed to be kept in abeyance.

¶91

The Petitioner contends that approximately 1108 societies were subjected to liquidation proceedings under the provisions of The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the impugned

¶92

4 of 6

¶93

Iresh

¶94

912-WP-994-2026 (C).doc

¶95

direction is undated, and not referable to any statutory provision; the same was issued on the basis of a letter addressed by respondent no. 5, by virtue of such direction, above referred societies, otherwise ineligible, are attempted to be included as a member in the ensuing elections of respondent no. 4.

¶96

In backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order/direction under challenge is bad in law and is passed in excess of jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the same is in gross violation to the by-laws of respondent no. 4 vis-a-vis the Article 166 of the Constitution of India.

¶97

During the course of submissions, learned senior Counsel Mr. Sakhare for the Respondent no. 5 has made a statement across the bar and fairly conceded to the unsustainability of the order under challenge.

¶98

When confronted with same, the learned AGP for the respondent nos. 1 to 3, has adopted the submissions of Respondent No. 5 and prayed to pass an appropriate orders.

¶99

Having heard the submissions from the respective sides, the impugned direction/order lacks individual consideration and

¶100

5 of 6

¶101

Iresh

¶102

912-WP-994-2026 (C).doc

¶103

statutory sanction.

¶104

Be that as it may. Given that the contesting respondents have fairly conceded to the unsustainability of the impugned direction/order, deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶105

Resultantly, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause A and B only.

¶106

In view of the aforesaid observations, all the interim applications are disposed of.

¶107

Needless to state, in view of the disposal of the present petition, the interim order shall stand vacated.

¶108

[SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶109

6 of 6

¶110

Iresh

Bhagwan Pandurang Dinde Sahakari Dudh Vyavsayik Sanstha Maryadit v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwan Pandurang Dinde Sahakari Dudh Vyavsayik Sanstha Maryadit v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yusuf Hamid Almajid vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nitin Kallappa Yedure vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anand Bhagwan Bhise and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hanuman Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaik Sanstha Mar., Mhasrang Thr. Chairman M. Vishnu Pandare and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rameshwar Bhimrao Talekar and Anr. vs Reshma Rajendra Pisal and Ors.

Parvati Mahila Sahakari Dudh Vyavasyik Sanstha Maryadit Halsawade vs Mahadeo Sahkari Doodh Vyavsayik Sanstha Maryadit Thr Its Director and Ors.