Bhandara Zilla Prathmik Shikshak ... vs Vikas S/O Wasudev Gaidhane And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12899 Bom

1/2                                                                          20.wp.3204.2021.odt



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 3204 OF 2021
 (Bhandara Zilla Prathmik Shikshak Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Bhandara V/s Vikas Wasudev
                                      Gaidhane & Ors.)

Office   Notes,    Office                        Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of Coram,
Appearances,      court's
orders or directions and
Prothonotary's orders


                                       Mr. S. D. Paliwal, Advocate for Petitioner.
                                       Ms. M. A. Barabde, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 &
                                       3.
                                                           ------

                                       CORAM     : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

                                       DATE      : SEPTEMBER 8, 2021.

                 .                Heard. Mr. Paliwal, learned Counsel for the Petitioner

submits that the disqualification contemplated by Section 73CA (1) explanation (c) (ii) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, in view of the expression used 'whichever is earlier' in respect of the repayment of the amount to avoid disqualification would indicate that in view of one of the contingency being repayment of the amount within thirty days from the date of withdrawal of Anamat or advance by him, the option of the same being repaid by him within thirty days of the receipt of notice of demand by the Society would become redundant. He further invites my attention to the Judgment of the full Bench in Narayan Gulabrao Bhoyar V/s Yeotmal Zilla Parishad Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Yeotmal

2/2 20.wp.3204.2021.odt

and another, 2009(6) Mh.L.J. 500 and Narayan Kisanrao Samundre & Ors. V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2003(3) ALL MR 554. He, therefore, submits that this issue had not been considered or addressed by the Respondent No.2 in the impugned order, in spite of the same having been raised before him, considering which, issue notice to the Respondents, returnable in two weeks.

2. Ms Barabde, the learned AGP waives notice for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. Petitioner to serve the Respondent No.1 by all modes, as permissible in law, including email and Whatsapp. Hamdast be granted, if prayed.

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) Yadav VG