Bombay High Court
Shankar Ramchandra Malwade vs State Of Maharashtara Through Chief ... on 3 May, 2024
Author: Gauri Godse
Bench: Gauri Godse
27.1968.21 wpst.docx
Iresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION ST NO. 1968 OF 2021
Shankar Ramchandra Malwade .....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra Through Chief .....Respondent
Secretary
Mr. Chandrakant Narayan Chavan for the petitioner
Mr. Vishwanath Talkute for respondent no. 3
Mr. B. B. Dahiphale AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2, 5 and 8.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATE : 3rd MAY 2024
P.C.
1. This petition takes exception to the order dated 19 th November
2020 passed by the learned Minister in the revision application filed
under section 154 of The Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act,
1960 ('MCS Act').
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that said revision was
not maintainable as the first revision filed by respondent no. 3 was
dismissed by the Divisional Joint Registrar.
3. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submits that proceedings
1/3
27.1968.21 wpst.docx
are arising out of a test audit report, which is based on a circular dated
25th October 2017. He submits that by Judgment dated 8 th April 2019,
in the case of Maharashtra State Co-operative Patsanstha Federation
Ltd. Mumbai Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 1, the said circular
has been quashed and set aside. He submits that in view of the said
decision, the second revision was filed before the learned Minister. He,
however, does not dispute that the second revision under section 154
of the MCS Act is not maintainable.
4. In view of the legal principle, learned counsel for respondent no.
3 submits that respondent no. 3 may be permitted to withdraw the
revision that was filed before the learned Minister with liberty to adopt
appropriate proceedings for challenging the order dated 29 th
November 2018 (Exhibit 'E').
5. Considering the admitted position of law that the second revision
before the learned Minister was not maintainable, I do not see any
impediment in permitting the petitioner to withdraw the same with
liberty as prayed.
1 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 830
2/3
27.1968.21 wpst.docx
6. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of by
passing the following order:
ORDER
(i) Respondent no. 3 is permitted to withdraw the
Revision Application No. 11 of 2015 filed before respondent
no. 1. Consequently, the order dated 19 th November 2020
stands quashed and set aside.
(ii) Respondent no. 3 is at liberty to adopt appropriate
remedy as permissible in law to challenge the order dated
29th November 2018 (Exhibit E).
(iii) It is clarified that I have not examined the rival
contentions of the parties on merits. Hence, all contentions
of all parties are kept open.
(iv) No further action be taken based on the order dated
29th November 2018 for a period of 10 weeks from today,
subject to respondent no. 3 filing appropriate proceedings
within 8 weeks from today.
7. Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms.
[GAURI GODSE, J.]
Signed by: Iresh S. Mashal
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/05/2024 12:56:02
