Nandgaon Khandeshwar Taluka ... vs Commissioner And Registrar Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7913 Bom

                                                              9.wp1001.2021 J.odt
                                             1/3



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 1001 OF 2021

  Nandgaon Khandeshwar Taluka
  Sahakari Shetki Kharedi Vikri
  Samiti Ltd., Regd. No.301,
  Through its President,
  Shri Vijay Vitthalrao Patekar
  Age about 67 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
  R/o.Nandgaon Khandeshwar,
  Tq. Nandgaon Khandeshwar,
  Dist. Amravati.                                    .... PETITIONER

                                 // VERSUS //

  1. Commissioner and Registrar of
  Co-operative Societies,
  Maharashtra State, Central Building,
  Pune, Tq. & Dist. Pune.

  2. Managing Director,
  Maharashtra State Co-operative
  Marketing Federation Ltd., Mumbai
  Kannur House, Nursing Natha Street,
  Masjid, Mumbai.

  3. District Deputy Registrar of
  Co-operative Societies, Amravati
  Office in front of Divisional
  Commissioner, Kanta Nagar,
  Amravati.

  4. District Marketing Officer,
  Maharashtra State Co-operative
  Marketing Federation Ltd.,
  C/o. Amravati District Co-operative
  Board Building, Amravati District
  Central Bank Premises, Irwin Chowk,
  Amravati.                                          .... RESPONDENTS

  Mr. Pravin S. Patil, Advocate for petitioner.
  Mr. Neeraj R. Patil, AGP for respondent Nos.1 & 3/State.
  ________________________________________________________________




::: Uploaded on - 16/06/2021                       ::: Downloaded on - 16/06/2021 22:15:31 :::
                                                              9.wp1001.2021 J.odt
                                            2/3




                                CORAM       : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                              ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATE : 15th JUNE, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER: S.B. Shukre, J.]

Hearing was conducted through Video conferencing

and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality

was proper.

2. Heard Mr. Pravin S. Patil, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Neeraj .R. Patil, who appears by

waiving notice for the respondent nos.1 and 3. There is no need to

issue notice to the remaining respondents, as final relief claimed in

this petition is only against the respondent No.1. The relief is

limited in nature and therefore, at this stage itself, the petition can

be disposed of.

3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of the learned counsel for the parties, who are present

before the Court.

4. It appears that there is an application made by the

petitioner to the respondent No.1, seeking his sanction for lodging a

police complaint against the Officers of respondent No.4-District

9.wp1001.2021 J.odt

Marketing Officer, Amravati for misappropriation of amount and

manipulation of documents. The relief as claimed is about to decide

this application appropriately. Such being the nature of relief, we

are of the view that it can be granted by this Court.

5. The writ petition is partly allowed.

6. The respondent No.1 is directed to decide the

application dated 28.12.2020 made to him by the petitioner, in

accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of the order.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

                             JUDGE                                  JUDGE
Prity