Sudhakar S/O Bapuji Medpalliwar v. State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary Ministry Of Cooperation Marketing And Handloom, Mumbai

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 3553 OF 2021 PETITIONERS :- 1.Sudhakar Bapuji Medpalliwar, aged about 60 years, Occup. Labour, R/o 125A, Jew Jagruti Colony, Katol Road, Nagpur.

2.Subhash Sakharam Sondawle, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Labour, R/o Surgeon, Tah. Umred, Dist.Nagpur.

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENTS :- 1.State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Co-operation Marketing and Handloom, Extension Building, Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400032.

2.The District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur, Sahakar Sadan, Plot No.8, Hindustan Colony, Amravati Road, Nagpur.

3.Nagpur District Labour Co-operative Society Federation Limited, Nagpur, Through its Manager or Secretary Office at Prachi Apartment, Chandak Layout, Near Cotton Market, Nagpur.

4.Swapnil Sunilrao Likhar. Aged about 32 years, Occup. Labour, R/o Ram Mandir Road, Karokar Chowk, Saoner, Dist.

Nagpur.

2/3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.S.S.Sanyal, counsel for the petitioners.

Ms.K.S.Joshi, G.P for respondent Nos.1 and 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE & ANIL S.KILOR, JJ.

DATE : 16.09 .20 .

O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per :Sunil B.Shukre, J.) 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned G.P, who appears by waiving notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. At this stage, we do not think it necessary to issue notice to the remaining respondents, as limited relief has been claimed in this petition.

2.

Hence, Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3.

The petitioners are primarily seeking intervention of respondent No.2 by exercising his powers to make an inquiry under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 as it is the contention of the petitioners that there are several acts of irregularities and misappropriation committed by

3/3 respondent No.3 and that elections are also over due. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that several complaints and the representations to respondent No.2 have remained unresponded. The representations are of the date of 09.03.2021, 06.04.2021 and 03.07.2021.

4.

We are of the view that purpose of this petition shall stand served, if respondent No.2 is directed to decide all representations/complaints, in accordance with law, in a time bound manner.

5.

The Writ Petition is therefore, partly allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to decide all the representations made by the petitioners in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks from the date of the order.

6.

Rule Accordingly. No costs.

(ANIL S. KILOR,J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE,J)