Laxmi Narayan Shukla vs The Divisional Joint Registrar ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1814 Bom

                                                                                    5. cri wp 1754-16.doc


RMA      
                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                          CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1754 OF 2016


            Laxmi Narayan Shukla                                           .. Petitioner

                                  Versus
            The Divisional Joint Registrar,
            Konkan Division, Kokan Bhavan & Ors.                           .. Respondents

                                                   ...................
            Appearances
            Mrs. Preeti B. Walimbe Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mrs. S.S. Bhende       AGP for the State
                                                    ...................



                              CORAM        : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
                                               M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

DATE : APRIL 18, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :

1. Heard both sides.

2. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule is made

returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally.

3. The prayer of the petitioner is that the direction be

issued to respondent No. 1 - The Divisional Joint Registrar,

jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 3

5. cri wp 1754-16.doc

Co-operative Societies, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai to

comply with the notice dated 29.3.2016 issued by the

Advocate of the petitioner which is annexed at Exh. J to the

petition and grant sanction for prosecution under Section

148 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1950.

4. As far as the later part of the prayer is concerned

regarding sanction, we are not inclined to pass any order at

this stage, however, as far as the earlier part of the prayer is

concerned, the Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-operative

Societies, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai to take a decision

on the notice dated 29.3.2016 after hearing the necessary

parties within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt

of this order

5. We make it clear that we have not expressed any

opinion on merits of this case and it is for respondent No. 1

to take a decision on the notice in accordance with law.

jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                          2 of 3



                                                              5. cri wp 1754-16.doc

6. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

[ M.S. KARNIK, J. ]                   [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]




jfoanz vkacsjdj                                                          3 of 3