Dismissed¶21

Limbaji Nana Khedkar v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Bombay HC27 Apr 2026WP/6806/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MCS Act 1960; Section 83 inquiry report; Section 88 inquiry; cooperative society; misappropriation allegation; special audit; Assistant Auditor; vague inquiry report; no evidence of misappropriation; property purchased Rs.12 Lakhs sold Rs.17 Lakhs; no loss to Society; respondent No.4 order; illegality or perversity; extraordinary writ jurisdiction; Aurangabad Bench; 2026 decision.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.4 applied his mind to the facts and the record placed before him, including the report under Section 83 and the reports submitted by Assistant Auditors Mr. P. S. Pise and Mr. S. S. Thorat. ¶17

Limbaji Nana Khedkar vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 28/02/2024 refusing further action on the Section 83 inquiry report suffers from illegality or perversity warranting interference under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The Section 83 inquiry report, the special audit reports of Mr. S. S. Thorat and Mr. P. S. Pise and respondent No.4's own inspection were contrary to each other; the inquiry officer made only a vague allegation of misappropriation without stating in which transaction how much misappropriation was done and without any exact figure.

¶18

Key takeaways

On going through the audit report, the report of Mr. S. S. Thorat, the Section 83 report and the liquidator's report, there is no material/evidence of misappropriation or corruption in the sale of the Society property purchased at Rs.12 Lakhs and sold for Rs.17 Lakhs; hence no misappropriation or loss was caused to the Society.ratio¶18
Taking into consideration the observations of respondent No.4, who took all relevant aspects and reports into consideration, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and no case is made out to interfere with it in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition dismissed - Order refusing further action on Section 83 inquiry report upheld. The petitioner challenged the communication/order dated 28/02/2024 issued by respondent No.4 refusing to initiate further action pursuant to the inquiry report under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 in respect of Late Vasantrao Naik Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha Ltd., Kharwandi Kasar, and also sought a direction to initiate an inquiry under Section 88 of the MCS Act, 1960 against the Society. The Court noted that respondent No.4 had applied his mind to the entire record, including the Section 83 report, the special audit reports of Mr. S. S. Thorat and Mr. P. S. Pise, and his own inspection, which were mutually contradictory. The Section 83 report contained only a vague allegation of misappropriation, without stating the transaction or the amount involved. On the audit report, the Thorat report, the Section 83 report and the liquidator's report, there was no material or evidence of misappropriation or corruption in the sale of Society property purchased at Rs.12 Lakhs and sold for Rs.17 Lakhs, i.e., no loss was caused to the Society. Finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned order, the Court declined to interfere in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:19326

¶2

1 36-WP-6806-24.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6806 OF 2024

¶5

SHRI. LIMBAJI NANA KHEDKAR VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶7

Mr. Kamlakar J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondents/State

¶8

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND

¶9

VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 27^th APRIL, 2026

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

By this petition, petitioner challenges communication / order dated 28/02/2024, issued by respondent No.4, thereby refusing to initiate further action in pursuance to the inquiry report under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (For short ‘MCS Act, 1960’) in respect of Late Vasantrao Naik Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha Ltd., Kharwandi Kasar, Tq. Pathardi, District Ahmednagar. Direction is also sought to initiate inquiry under Section 88 of the MCS Act, 1960 on the basis of inquiry report under Section 83, against the said Society.

¶13

Heard learned advocate for petitioner and learned AGP for respondents/State. Perused the impugned order and reply filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶14

Perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent

¶15

SVH

¶16

2 36-WP-6806-24.odt

¶17

No.4 has applied his mind to the facts and the record placed before him, including the report under Section 83, report submitted by Mr. P. S. Pise, Assistant Auditor and report submitted by Mr. S. S. Thorat, Assistant Auditor.

¶18

After going through the documents and papers available, we find that the report submitted under Section 83 of the MCS Act, 1960 and the reports submitted by Mr. S. S. Thorat and Mr. P. S. Pise as well as inspection made by respondent No.4 himself are contrary to each other. Record reveals that due to the complaint of petitioner, apart from regular audit, special audit was directed through Mr. S. S. Thorat and Mr. P. S. Pise. Respondent No.4 found no evidence or proof in respect of allegation of petitioner that there is huge misappropriation at the instance of said Society. He has categorically observed in the impugned order that in the inquiry report under Section 83, inquiry officer has not stated as to in which transaction how much misappropriation is done. No exact figure is stated and vague statement is made in the report that there was misappropriation. It is further mentioned that, after going through the audit report, report submitted by Mr. S. S. Thorat, report submitted under Section 83 and the report of liquidator, it is clear that there is no material / evidence in respect of misappropriation or corruption while selling of property of the Society, which was purchased at Rs.12 Lakhs and sold for Rs.17 Lakhs is found. So, there is no misappropriation and/or loss caused to the Society.

¶19

SVH

¶20

3 36-WP-6806-24.odt

¶21

Taking into consideration the observations made by respondent No.4 in the impugned order and since he has taken all the relevant aspects and reports into consideration, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the order impugned in present petition. No case is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶22

(VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

¶23

SVH

Limbaji Nana Khedkar v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Limbaji Nana Khedkar v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Taterao Dhondiba Bamnikar vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Others

Taterao Dhondiba Bamnikar vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Others

Chandrakala Asaram Shelke Died through Poa Atul Radhakrushna Gopale vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Sachin Sunil Deshmukh and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Swati Ashokrao Vaidya and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nitin Vilas Sonvane and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others