CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2002) 01 BOM CK 0001

Appasaheb Bhagwanrao Jadhav and Bhivrao Tukaram Pawar vs The State of Maharashtra, The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nasik Division, The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, State Minister for Cooperation, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai and S.V. Gorade

Bombay High Court · Decided on 15 January 2002

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.B. Mhase, J · A.P. Deshpande, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 171 of 2002

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 358 words

A.P. Deshpande, J.—Application for intervention filed by advocate Shri A. S. Bajaj is allowed. On the request of learned Counsel for the petitioners, respondent no.5 is allowed to be deleted.

2.

Heard Shri V. D. Hon, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri S. K. Kadam, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents No.1 to 4 & 6 and Shri A. S. Bajaj, learned Counsel for intervenor. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. Learned Counsel for respective respondents waive service of rule.

3.

The present petitioners have filed the instant petition seeking protection in the event of passing of an adverse order by the Respondent No.4 - State Minister for Cooperation in Revision Application pending on his file. The Revision arises out of the order passed in appeal dated 21.12.2000, whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioners came to be dismissed, wherein an order passed u/s 78 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, was challenged.

4.

Petitioners contend that stay has been granted by the Respondent No.4 and in this view of the matter, said stay needs to operate till the decision of the Revision Application and for a period of fifteen days thereafter, if adverse order is passed, so as to grant breathing time to the petitioners to move the appropriate forum.

5.

After perusal of the averments made in the petition so also the documents, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met by granting protection to the present petitioners pending the decision of the Revision before the Respondent No.4.

6.

In the result, petition is allowed in the following terms.

(i) Respondent No.4 is directed to decide the Revision expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from today by a reasoned order.

(ii) The stay order passed by the Respondent No.4 shall continue to operate till the decision of the Revision by the Respondent No.4 and for a period of two weeks from the date of service of adverse order, if passed by the Respondent No.4, on the petitioners.

(iii) Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs.