Vishal Prakashrao Patil And ORS. v. The Hon'Ble Minister For Corperation And ORS.
1 / 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.31099 OF 2017 Vikramsingh Shivajirao Sarnobat & Anr.
.... Petitioners versus The Hon'ble Minister for Cooperation Mantralaya & Ors.
... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.31104 OF 2017 Vishal Prakashrao Patil & Ors.
.... Petitioners versus The Hon'ble Minister for Cooperation Mantralaya & Ors.
... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.31114 OF 2017 Vikramsingh Shivajirao Sarnobat & Anr.
.... Petitioners versus The Hon'ble Minister for Cooperation Mantralaya & Ors.
... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.31179 OF 2017 Vishal Prakashrao Patil & Ors.
.... Petitioners versus The Hon'ble Minister for Cooperation Mantralaya & Ors.
... Respondents .......
• Mr.U.R. Mankapure, Advocate for the Petitioners. • Mrs.R.A. Salunkhe, AGP, Advocate for the Respondent/State. • Mr.Santosh Patil, OSD, present.
Nesarikar
2 / 3 CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATE : 15th NOVEMBER, 2017.
P.C. :
1.
The above group of Petitions have been filed by the Ex Directors, Directors and Office bearers of the Shri Vasantdada Shetkari Sakhar Karkhana Limited Sangli seeking a direction that the Respondent No.1 i.e. the Honourable Minister For Co operation, Mantralaya, Mumbai, be directed to decide the Revision Applications filed by the Petitioners and which are pending before the State Government i.e. the Honourable Minister for Cooperation as early as possible. 2.
The said Revision Applications have been filed challenging the report u/s 83 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, submitted by the Enquiry Officer. In the said Revision Applications the Petitioners have also filed the applications for stay. In view of the fact that the said Revision Applications or the stay Applications have not been taken up for
3 / 3 consideration, that the Petitioners have filed the instant Petitions. The learned AGP on instructions of Mr.Santosh Patil, OSD Cooperation Department, makes a statement that the Applications for stay filed by the Petitioners would be decided within four weeks from date as the hearing is already complete. Statement accepted.
3.
In view of the said statement it is not necessary to keep the above Petitions pending. The Petitions are accordingly disposed of. However, during the said period of four weeks, the matter u/s 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act would not be proceeded with before the enquiry officer. It is clarified that the grant of the instant protective order should not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case of the Petitioners in the Revision Applications.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (R. M. SAVANT, J.)