Pedgaon Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Seva Soc. Ltd. Thrugh Its Then Chairman v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And ORS.

R.M. AMBERKAR (Private Secretary)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2387 OF 2018 Man Taluka Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Dahiwadi through its Secretary .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2224 OF 2018 Mayani Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., through its Chief Executive Officer .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2225 OF 2018 Yashwant Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Seva Soc Ltd through its Secretary .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2400 OF 2018 Shree Siddhanath Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit through Deputy Manager .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.

2797 OF 2018 Maay Mauli Kailaswasi Sajabai Sable Nari Niketan Sanstha through its Chairman .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary & Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2798 OF 2018 Pedgaon Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Seva Soc Ltd through its then Chairman .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary & Ors.

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3018 OF 2018 Shingnapur Mohi Panchkroshi .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3304 OF 2018 Sushikshit Bekar Sahakari Dudh Utpadan Sanstha Ltd through its Chairman .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3318 OF 2018 Mahalaxmi Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Mohi through its..

.. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3326 OF 2018 Sevagiri Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pusegaon .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3398 OF 2018 Ambavade Vividhi Karyakari Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit through its Chairman .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4322 OF 2018 Enkul Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Seva Society Ltd, through its Secretary .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary & Ors. .. Respondents ...................

 Mr. Milind Deshmukh for the Petitioner in WP 2387/18, 2400/18, 2797/18, 2798/18, 3018/18, 3304/18, 3318/18, 3326/18, 3398/18, 4322/18  Mr. Dilip Bodke for the Petitioner in WP 2224/18 and 2225/18  Mr. L.S. Deshmukh for the Petitioner in WP 13846/17

 Ms. N.D. Vyas 'B' Panel Counsel for the Respondent - State ...................

CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ.

DATE : JULY 3, 2019.

P.C.:

1.

These petitions arise in common background. They have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common order.

2.

For convenience, we may refer to the facts from Writ Petition No. 2387 of 2018.

3.

The petitioner is a co-operative society. The petitioner has challenged a communication dated 21.11.2017 as at 'Exhibit I' to the petition. This was a letter written by SubDivisional Officer, Man - Khatav, Taluka Dahiwadi, District Satara to the Collector (Supply Cell), Satara. This communication contains an annexure which is a list of various co-operative societies, one of them being the petitioner. The letter records that irregularities have been detected in conducting camps conducted by these societies and the appropriate action would be initiated.

4.

Learned AGP referred to the affidavit in reply dated 14.1.2019 and submitted that the list in question is not meant to be a blacklist. It was only prepared pursuant to the Public Interest Litigation pending before the High Court and was for contemplation of further action against erring societies. The list, itself, therefore does not give rise to any cause of action. She further stated that where ever found, necessary FIRs have been lodged against the persons responsible for functioning of the societies. 5.

From the record, therefore, it emerges that the list in question is merely an internal document, not in any manner prejudicial to the petitioner society. It is not meant to be a blacklist nor the list itself envisages any civil or penal action against the society.

6.

Needless to state, in case of those societies where FIR have been lodged, the accused would have full opportunity to defend themselves. No departmental action obviously could be taken without following the principles of natural justice.

7.

With these observations and clarifications, all the petitions are disposed of.

[ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ] [ AKIL KURESHI, J ]