Sonai Magasvargiya Industrial Co-Op. Soc. Ltd., Sahapur Through Chairman v. State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.1 OF 2019 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.14 OF 2019 Sonai Magasvargiya Industrial Co-op. Society Ltd. And others ..Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.42 OF 2019 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.14 OF 2019 The State of Maharashtra and others ..Applicants
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Smt. Sushila Gangaram Shinde and others ..Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents Mr. A. Y. Sakhare Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Prashant P. Kulkarni I/by Mr. Abhijeet B. Desai, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. P. P. Kakade, Govt. Pleader a/w Nisha Mehra, AGP for the Respondent - State & for Applicants in Civil Application No.42 of 2019.
CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & N. M. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : 29th JULY, 2019 BGP. 1 of 3
P.C.
1] Grievance projected in Public Interest Litigation No.14 of 2019 was that in spite of finding irregularities in the functioning of 83 co-operative societies, no action was being taken pursuant to two orders of even date, dated 11th May 2018.
2] By the one order dated 11th May 2018 recommendation was to cancel the registration of 82 societies and by the second letter of even date, it was directed that recovery proceedings be initiated against 43 societies. We gave Government six weeks' time to pass final orders based on the two letters which were recommendatory in nature.
3] Seeking review, one of the 83 societies affected by our decision points out that on 1st August 2018 the society and few more, marching under banner of federation, made a representation to the Government as to why the two orders dated 11th May 2018 need to be revoked, to which the Government's response on 10.08.2018 was received followed by a directive order dated 23rd October 2018 that process of re-inspection of the land given to the societies was on. 4] To put it simply the case of the Review Petitioners is that the re-commendatory orders dated 11th May 2018 could be inquired into by the Government and that the Government is looking into the factual issues.
BGP. 2 of 3
5] It this be so, we see no reason to review our order for the simple reason we had simply directed the Government to pass necessary orders. If the Government feels that some more information needs to be placed before it pass formal orders that would be no grant to review our order. The only thing which is warranted is to extend the time which was fixed as six weeks by us. Indeed this prayer is made by the Government in Civil Application No.42 of 2019. The Government prays that four months time be further granted so that in this period necessary inquiry can be completed. 6] Declining relief as prayed in the Review Application, we dispose of the Review Application and the Civil Application granting Government four months reckoned from today to complete the inquiry and pass final order keeping in view the two orders dated 11th May 2018, implementation whereof was prayed for in the Public Interest Litigation.
N. M. JAMDAR, J CHIEF JUSTICE BGP. 3 of 3