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.
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
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
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
