← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/13178/2025disposed off

Anil Ganjidhar Pawar v. Kedar Pandurang Kale And Others

2025-12-11Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi , Hon'Ble Shri Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar2 pages

2025:BHC-AUG:38048-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 909 WRIT PETITION NO.13178 OF 2025 ANIL GANJIDHAR PAWAR

VERSUS

KEDAR PANDURANG KALE AND OTHERS ...

Anil Ganjidhar Pawar - Party-in-Person for petitioner Mr. S.B. Narwade, AGP for State ...

CORAM :

SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

DATE :

11th DECEMBER, 2025 ORDER :

( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) .

Heard the Party-in-Person and perused the documents. Petitioner has challenged the notice dated 26.08.2025 given by the office of City Title Survey, Dhule to petitioner society for removal of name of society. The said notice is only the show cause notice directing the petitioner to remain present when the application was filed by respondent No.1 for inclusion of name. It is the show cause notice only, which cannot be

909_WP_13178_2025 challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is the opportunity that is given to petitioner to remain present. The next prayer clause is for directions to respondents not to interfere and not to cause any hurdle in the affairs of petitioner society, time and again, till the decision of this writ petition, which appears to be the interim relief. But when the main petition itself is not maintainable, question of granting interim relief does not arise. Another main point that is required to be considered is that the petitioner contends that Dhule Zilla Parishad Servants' Co-operative Housing Society is stated to be a registered society under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.

Instead of the petition being filed through the society, the petitioner in the capacity of Chairman cannot file the petition and also there is no resolution that has been annexed to show that the society has authorized the petitioner to file the present petition. With such defects, this is not a fit case where we should exercise our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition, therefore, stands dismissed. ( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.