Writ Petition No. 3989 of 2009 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Heard Shri Tambde, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Khubalkar, learned AGP for respondents No.1 & 2 and Mrs. Jog, learned counsel for respondents No. 5 & 6. The matter is being considered since quite some time in view of the grievance made that it was never posted for recording of evidence and the petitioners did not get any opportunity. The learned AGP has pointed out that in report itself the Authorized Officer has mentioned that Shri Gajbhiye ex-President of Society was available for recording of evidence but the petitioners did not record his evidence. According to the petitioners, they had given their list of witnesses. Mrs. Jog, learned counsel states that the petitioners have been raising various technical objections in piecemeal and the matter has been delayed indefinitely. She points out that out of present five petitioners, two have been again elected as Managing 2 Committee members. She, therefore, states that these respondents should be permitted to remain present in Section 88 Enquiry so as to keep watch that no such technical lacunae are left in the matter. The learned AGP has produced original records for perusal of Court. He states that the order sheet dated “26.11”, after order sheet dated 24.12 at page 10 is in fact order sheet dated 26.12. He points out that as per that order sheet, Shri Gajbhiye was summoned as witness and he was present on
27.12.2008. The petitioners are disputing this. I have perused the order sheets and find that in some of the order sheets, next date for hearing has not been mentioned. The communication dated
05.12.2008 which is titled as charge sheet stated that enquiry would continue daily from 15.12.2008 till
25.12.2008. The order sheet dated 02.12.2008 mentions that hearing on charge sheet is scheduled on
15.12.2008. There is no order sheet of 15.12.2008 and order sheet available on record is dated 22.12.2008. The representations received by the Manager of Society were accepted and matter was then taken up on
23.12.2008. Time was given to the petitioners on
24.12.2008 to file their reply. The order sheet dated
24.12.2008 shows that replies were received on it and it appears that some objection raised by the petitioners was then decided on 24.12.2008 in the order sheet itself. No next date is thereafter given. The next order sheet is dated “26.11.”. This order sheet mentions that ex- 3 President Shri Gajbhiye was to be communicated a message to remain present before Authorized Officer for recording of his evidence. That order sheet also mentions that next date of hearing was scheduled on
Operative part
27.12.2008 at 3.00 P.M. The order sheet thereafter is dated 27.12.2008. These order sheets nowhere show that the case was fixed for recording of evidence, to be adduced by the petitioners. If the Authorized Officer wanted to record evidence of Shri Gajbhiye, it was altogether different aspect but the case was never fixed for recording of evidence of other witnesses. Shri Gajbhiye also appears to be one of the delinquent on whom charge sheet dated 05.12.2008 was served. I, therefore, find substance in the contention of the petitioners that adequate opportunity was not given to them in the matter. In view of this finding, the impugned order dated 11.09.2009 as also report of enquiry under Section 88 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, submitted by the Authorized Officer Shri Muley is hereby quashed and set aside. The enquiry under Section 88 of the Act is restored back to the file of Respondent No. 2 for taking fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law. As the matter matter is old, fresh enquiry shall be completed as early as possible and in any case by 31st March 2010. The enquiry shall commence from the stage of recording of evidence. The present respondents No. 5 & 6 are permitted to remain present on scheduled dates of hearing and on each order sheet the authorized officer 4 appointed by Respondent No.2 shall obtain signatures of the petitioners as also present respondents No. 5 & 6 and shall give them next date of appearance on each date. The learned AGP has pointed out that Respondent No.2 may be required to appoint any other officer to proceed further with the enquiry. In the circumstances, the petitioners as also Respondents No. 5 & 6 shall appear before Respondent No.2 on 31.12.2009 and shall abide by his further directions in the matter. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. No costs. A copy of this order be furnished to learned AGP. *GS. JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 88.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 27 Dec 2008. The bench was B P DHARMADHIKARI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.