Chintamani Gopal Joshi v. The Chairman,The Murud Tal.Sah.Supari K.V.S.Ltd.
ssm 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4165 OF 2000 Shri Nitesh Sadashiv Deshpande ....Petitioner.
Vs.
The Chairman, Through the Murud Taluka Sahakari Supari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Ltd. & Ors.
....Respondents.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4163 OF 2000 Shri Chintamani Gopal Joshi ....Petitioner.
Vs.
The Chairman, Through the Murud Taluka Sahakari Supari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Ltd. & Ors.
....Respondents.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4162 OF 2000 Shri Ashok Vasudeo Joshi ....Petitioner.
Vs.
The Chairman, Through the Murud Taluka Sahakari Supari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Ltd. & Ors.
....Respondents.
None present.
CORAM:- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.
DATE :- 3 FEBRUARY 2015.
P.C:- As the order is common, so also the action and the 1/3
ssm 2 Respondents, therefore, this is a common order. The Petitioners, who were expelled from the Society, preferred Appeal/challenged the said action. Both the Authorities by the impugned orders maintained the action of expulsion as contemplated under Section 35 (1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, the Act), some time in the year 19992000. This Court, while admitting the Petition on 14 August 2000, granted interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (b), that resulted into the stay of the impugned orders/action of expulsion. There is nothing on record to show that the above order is challenged by the Respondents. The effect is that, in view of above order passed by this Court, the action of expulsion remained stayed since 19992000 till this date. There is no question to keep the matters pending with undisputed position on record.
Therefore, taking overall view of the matters, by keeping all points open, I am inclined to dispose of all the Writ Petitions in 2/3
ssm 3 view of order dated 14 August 2000 passed by this Court. However, liberty is granted to the Respondents to initiate proceedings again in accordance with law, if so advised, by giving full opportunity to the Petitioners.
Rule disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) 3/3