Shubhangi S. Juvekar And 7 ORS v. State Of Maharashtra And 3 ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION.

WRIT PETITION NO. 1697 OF 2015 Shubhangi S. Juvekar & Ors.

... Petitioners V/s.

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

... Respondents.

-------- Mr. Altaf Khan i/b Ms. Anjali Awasthi for the Petitioner. Mr. Milind More, Addl. G. P. for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 State. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J.

DATED : 30/11/2015.

P.C.:

.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The learned Addl. G. P. filed Affidavit-in-Reply dated 26.11.2015 duly affirmed by Dhananjay Madanrao Shinde, Asst. Police Inspector, Pant Nagar Police Station. Same is taken on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed submissions dated 26.11.2015. Same is taken on record.

By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking directions against the Respondent Senior Police Inspector to comply the order dated 08.01.2015 issued by the Tahasildar under Section 80(2) of Maharashtra Co. Operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter will be referred as 'the said Act'). The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Ex-Chairman and Secretary of the society was not ready and willing to hand over the possession of 1/3

the office premises of the society as well as documents. Hence, he has moved this Writ Petition for the directions to the police authority to execute the order dated 08.01.2015.

On the other hand, the learned Addl. G.P. for the respondents submits that the order passed by the Tahasildar dated 08.01.2015 is already executed by the Police Authority. They already seized all the documents and handed over to the Administrator Mr. Santosh Ranshinge. He submits that Administrator Mr. Santosh Ranshinge signed the possession receipt dated 14.09.2015, which is Exh.1 (page 17 to the Affidavit-in-Reply). He submits that Administrator has not made any grievance about the execution of order dated 08.01.2015 passed by the Tahasildar under Section 80(2) of the said Act. He submits that in this way, they complied the said order. To that effect, the deponent has made averments in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of Affidavit-in-Reply.

I heard both the sides at length. It is to be noted that though the administrator was appointed for the Society known as Pantnagar Hansika Darshan Co. Op. Society Ltd., no one appeared on behalf of Administrator. Apart from that, the Administrator taken the possession of the society's office as well as documents and to that effect, he has signed possession receipt dated 14.09.2015. In this way, the respondent no.2 complied the order passed by the Tahasildar dated 08.01.2015 under Section 80(2) of the said Act. Considering the submissions made by learned Addl.G.P. for 2/3

respondent State and Affidavit-in-Reply dated 26.11.2015, I do not find anything remained in the present petition to be decided. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. (K.K.TATED, J.) 3/3