← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/2477/2015dismissed

Avinash Dattatraya Bhate v. Ld. Minister For Co-Operation, State Of Maharashtra And ORS

2015-10-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice A. K. Menon2 pages

hcs w2477.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2477 OF 2015 Avinash Dattatraya Bhate .. Petitioner.

Vs.

Ld. Minister for Co-operation State of Maharashtra & Ors.

.. Respondents.

Ms. Manjiri Parasnis for the Petitioner.

Mr. S.D. Rayrikar AGP for the Respondents.

CORAM : A.K. MENON, J.

DATED : 9TH OCTOBER, 2015 P.C. :

1.

The present petition challenges the decision of respondent no.1 passed in Revision No.ARVA-2013/Case No.436/15S dated 9th October, 2013 whereby revision application was rejected and the appointment of Administrator was confirmed. It is the case of the petitioner that the society was holding land of approximately 21 acres. The allegations were also made that the managing committee in order to take advantage of the same and in order to make personal profit and in order develop the land of society misdirected and misinformed the committee members. Accordingly, there were irregularities, fraud and mischief committed by the managing committee to usurp the property of the society. Subsequently, a Special Audit was carried out by the Special Auditor Class I (Flying Squad) who made an audit and

w2477.15 submitted a report dated 17th May, 2012 wherein the petitioner was indicted and this order was challenged in the Revision Application which came to be dismissed. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the observation are not true and thereby they are entitled to challenge the same as being factually incorrect.

2.

Be that as it may, in view of the fact that this fact finding report has indicted the petitioner there is no ground made out for interference with the impugned order dated 9th October, 2013 passed by respondent no.1 dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. The impugned order does not suffer from any perversity and does not call for interference. 3.

The petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to the costs. (A.K.MENON, J.)