Mahesh Ramchandra Hake v. The State Of Maharashtra Thru The Dept. Of Cooperation And ORS

30-wp10793-2023&IA2196-2024.doc VRJ

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10793 OF 2023 VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2196 OF 2024 VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Date: 2025.02.11 18:43:45 +0530 IN WRIT PETITION NO.10793 OF 2023 Mahesh Ramchandra Hake ... Petitioner V/s.

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Department of Cooperation & Ors.

... Respondents Mr. S. S. Panchpor with Ms. N. S. Mahadik for the petitioner/applicant.

M. S. Bane, AGP for the State.

Mr. Vijay Patil, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohan Tekavde, Ms. Sanjana Shivkar, Ms. Shrushti Gimhavanekar, Ms. Janvi Kondalkar and Ms. Mrudula Kadam i/by A. D. I. Legal for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Ms. P. J. Gavhane for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

CORAM

: AMIT BORKAR, J.

DATED : FEBRUARY 11, 2025 P.C.:

1.

Challenge in this writ petition is to an order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, exercising power under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, against a letter issued by the Special Recovery Officer communicating completion of the auction process dated 16 March 2023.

30-wp10793-2023&IA2196-2024.doc 2.

It is contended by respondents that the said letter fails to meet the definition of an "order" as envisaged under the relevant statutory provisions, and consequently, falls outside the ambit of judicial review under Section 154.

3.

The issuance of the letter communicating completion of the auction process is neither a decision nor an order as contemplated by Section 154 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Accordingly, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to initiate proceedings under the Act or the applicable Rules as are permissible under law. In light of the foregoing, the invocation of writ jurisdiction on the present ground is misplaced, and the petitioner is directed to avail of the statutory redressal mechanisms provided by the legislative framework. 4.

The time expended by the petitioner in prosecuting both the revision application and the present writ petition shall be excluded while assessing the appropriateness of the remedies adopted. With this clarification, the writ petition is hereby disposed of. 5.

In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the interim application does not survive and is likewise disposed of. Consequently, all pending interim relief applications are disposed of.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)