Kurul Hanuman Vikas Karyakari ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thru ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4027 Bom

          Digitally signed
   2023:BHC-AS:12293-DB
          by GAURI
GAURI   AMIT                                              1/3                 25.WP-11960-2018.doc
AMIT    GAEKWAD
GAEKWAD Date:
        2023.04.24
           17:18:01 +0530          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                              WRIT PETITION NO.11960 OF 2018
                 Kurul Hanuman Vikas Karyakari Seva
                 Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit and Anr.           .....Petitioners
                       Vs.
                 The State of Maharashtra and Ors.            .....Respondents
                                                      ----
                 Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni i/b. D.D. & Abhijit Associates for petitioners.
                 Mr. A.I. Patel, AGP a/w. Mr. K.S. Thorat, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 6.
                 Mr. Dilip Bodake for respondent no.7.
                 Mr. Datta Pawar for respondent nos.8 and 9.
                                                      ----
                                                        CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM &
                                                                   RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.

DATED : 21st APRIL 2023

P.C. :

1 Petitioners have impugned an order dated 10th January 2018

passed by respondent no.6 appointing Interim Liquidator to respondent

no.8. Respondent no.9 is the Interim Liquidator. Respondent no.6 has

exercised its powers under Section 102 (1) (c) (iv) of the Maharashtra

Co-operative Societies Act (MCS Act). A copy of the said order is annexed

to the petition and it prima facie appears to be a reasoned order. Since an

English translation has not been provided, we have not gone into the

contents of the said order.

2 Mr. Kulkarni, relying upon a judgment of the Division Bench of

this Court in Chandrapur Zilla Sahakari Krushi and Gramin Bahuudeshiya

Development Bank Ltd. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 1, submitted that

a hearing should have been given even before passing the interim order.

                 1. 2004 (1) ALL MR 266


                 Gauri Gaekwad




                                      2/3                25.WP-11960-2018.doc

There is an affidavit in reply filed by one Kundan Vasudeo Bhole affirmed

on 4th October 2018 in which it has been averred that pre-interim show

cause notice was issued by respondent no.6 to all members of respondent

no.8 society and other interested parties on 16 th October 2017 calling for

claims and objections thereon. A copy of the pre-interim show cause notice

is also annexed to the said affidavit.

3 Section 102 (2) of MCS Act provides that the Registrar would

call for explanation from the society and give an opportunity to the society

and creditors of the society of being heard before passing a final order

vacating or confirming the interim order.

4 Mr. Patel states that such a communication has been issued.

This is also confirmed by Mr. Pawar appearing for respondent nos.8 and 9.

Mr. Kulkarni also confirms that such a communication has been issued.

Mr. Patel states that parties have also responded to the communication.

Mr. Kulkarni states that he has no instructions but if for any reason

petitioners have not responded, petitioners will file their objections to the

interim order passed under Section 102 (1) of MCS Act and those

objections will be filed within two weeks from today. Statement accepted.

5 Respondent no.6 shall give a personal hearing to all parties

concerned and pass a final order on or before 30 th June 2023. The notice of

personal hearing shall be communicated atleast five working days in

advance. Should any of the parties wish to file written submissions

Gauri Gaekwad

3/3 25.WP-11960-2018.doc

recording what had transpired during the personal hearing, they may do so

within three working days of the conclusion of the personal hearing.

6               Petition disposed.

7               We clarify that we have not made any observation on the

merits of the matter.



(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)                               (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)




Gauri Gaekwad