Sanjay Jijabrao Rajput vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 85 Bom

                                                          Writ Petition No.1518/2016
                                            1




                                                                            
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                    
                         WRIT PETITION NO.1518 OF 2016




                                                   
     Sanjay s/o Jijabrao Rajput
     Age major, Occ. Nil,
     R/o Plot No.96, Gat No.28,




                                         
     Muktai Nagar, S.M.I.T. College, Jalgaon.                ...      PETITIONER

              VERSUS
                             
     1.       The State of Maharashtra
                            
              through its Secretary,
              Ministry of Co-operation, Marketing
              and Textile Department,
              Mantralaya, Mumbai
      


     2.       The Co-operation Commissioner
              and Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
   



              Maharashtra State, New Central
              Building, Pune - 411 001

     3.       The Divisional Assistant Registrar,





              Co-operative Societies,
              Nashik Division, Nashik

     4.       The District Deputy Registrar,
              Co-operative Societies, Jalgaon.





     5.       The District Special Auditor, Class-1,
              Co-operative Societies, Jalgaon.

     6.       The Assistant Registrar,
              Co-operative Societies, Yawal,
              Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon.             ...      RESPONDENTS

                                    .....
     Shri Girish Nagori, Advocate for petitioner
     Shri S.S. Dande, A.G.P. for respondents
                                    .....



    ::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2016                    ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:39:42 :::
                                                             Writ Petition No.1518/2016
                                               2




                                                                                
                                      CORAM:       R.M. BORDE AND
                                                   A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.

                                      DATED:       25th February, 2016.


     ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per R.M. Borde, J.):




                                                       
     1.               Rule.        Rule made returnable forthwith.             With the

consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petition

is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

2. The petitioner is objecting to the order dated

3.12.2015, passed by respondent No.2, directing removal of his

name from the list of approved Auditors for a period of five

years. The action appears to have been taken by the

Commissioner for Co-operation, Pune as a consequence of

registration of crime against the petitioner.

3. On perusal of the order, it appears that, the same

has been issued without extending an opportunity of hearing to

the petitioner. The petitioner has also stated on oath that the

Commissioner for Co-operation, before issuing the impugned

order, has not extended opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Since the impugned order has been issued without observing the

principles of natural justice, the same deserves to be quashed

and set aside.

Writ Petition No.1518/2016

4. It would be open for the Commissioner for Co-

operation to pass appropriate orders after extending opportunity

of hearing to the petitioner. The notice in respect of proposed

action shall also have to be served upon the petitioner well in

advance.

5. In view of above, the Writ Petition is allowed. The

order dated 3.12.2015, issued by the Commissioner for Co-

operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra

State, Pune is quashed and set aside. The matter stands

remitted back to the concerned authorities. As has been stated

above, before passing any order, the concerned respondent shall

extend an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the action

shall be preceded by an appropriate notice indicating the action

proposed to be taken against the petitioner.

6. Rule made absolute accordingly. There shall be no

order as to costs.

              (A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.)                 ( R.M. BORDE, J.)