The Vidarbha Cooperative ... vs Shri. Sunil Amrutrao Khadse

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 1278 Bom
Judgement Date : 29 March, 2017

Bombay High Court
The Vidarbha Cooperative ... vs Shri. Sunil Amrutrao Khadse on 29 March, 2017
Bench: Z.A. Haq
                                         1                                           wp606.16




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  

                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


 WRIT PETITION NO. 606 OF 2016


 The Vidarbha Co-operative Marketing
 Society Limited, through its Managing
 Director, Ganesh Peth, Nagpur.
 (original Opponent/Respondent)                                   ....       PETITIONER


                     VERSUS


 Shri Sunil Amrutrao Khadse,
 Aged about 40 years, 
 Occupation - Service, 
 R/o Mudholkar Peth, Amravati,
 Tahsil and District Amravati.
 (Original Disputant)                                             ....       RESPONDENT


 ______________________________________________________________
              Shri S.S. Ghate, Advocate for the petitioner,
            Shri Pravin S. Patil, Advocate for the respondent.
  ______________________________________________________________

                               CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 29 MARCH, 2017.

th ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri S.S. Ghate, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Pravin S. Patil, Advocate for the respondent.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 21:22:34 :::

2 wp606.16

3. The original non-disputant before the Co-operative Court takes exception to the order passed by the Co-operative Appellate Court dismissing the revision petition filed by it and maintaining the order passed by the Co-operative Court by which the application (Exhibit No.28) filed by the respondent/disputant is allowed. By this application (Exhibit No.28), the disputant sought directions to the non- disputant to produce some documents on record.

4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the documents of which the disputant seeks production were not produced before the enquiry conducted against the disputant and that the non-disputant has not relied on those documents to prove the charges levelled against the disputant.

5. The learned Advocate for the respondent/disputant has submitted that in the dispute before the Co-operative Court, the legality of the enquiry proceedings and the resolution passed by the non-disputant inflicting punishment on the disputant have been challenged and it is the case of the disputant that the superior officer/officers had not been co-operating with the disputant because of which he could not efficiently perform his duties and to prove this ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 21:22:34 ::: 3 wp606.16 the disputant sought production of the documents.

6. After considering the facts of the case specially that the disputant had not participated in the enquiry conducted against him and has not made any attempt to seek production of those documents during the course of enquiry and accepting the submission made on behalf of the petitioner/non-disputant that the documents, production of which is sought by the respondent/disputant are not relied upon by the non-disputant to substantiate the charges levelled against the disputant, in my view, the Co-operative Court has committed an error in directing the petitioner/non-disputant to produce the documents. The Co-operative Court has recorded that the documents are in the custody of the non-disputant and no prejudice will be caused to it if the production of documents is directed. The Co-operative Court has not considered the relevance of the documents which are sought to be produced at the behest of the disputant, for deciding the controversy in the dispute. The non-disputant cannot be compelled to produce the documents only because the documents are in the custody of the non- disputant and no prejudice will be caused to it if it is directed to produce the documents. The considerations of the Co-operative Court are erroneous and therefore, the order passed by it is vitiated. The ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 21:22:34 ::: 4 wp606.16 Co-operative Appellate Court has also failed to appreciate the above aspects and therefore, the order passed by it is also unsustainable.

Hence, the following order :

                    (i)      The impugned orders are set aside.

                    (ii)     The   application   (Exhibit   No.28)   filed   by   the

                             respondent/disputant is dismissed. 

                             Rule   made   absolute   in   the   above   terms.     In   the

circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE adgokar ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 21:22:34 :::