Shri Lingbhairi Sahakari Dudh Vyavsayik Sanstha Maryadit Thr. Its Chairman Anant Tukaram Kasabale v. Mahadeo Sahakari Doodh Vyavsayik Snasha Maryadit

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Director The State Of Maharashtra And Others INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 1980 OF 2026 Mahalaxmi Mahila Sahakari Dudh Vyavsayik Sanstha Maryadit, Savarwadi Director And Ors IRESH MASHAL INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 1985 OF 2026 by IRESH MASHAL Date:

2026.03.25 19:52:22 +0530 Parvati Mahila Sahakari Dudh Vyavasyik Sanstha Maryadit Halsawade Director And Ors INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 357 OF 2026 Hanuman Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaik Sanstha Mar., Mhasrang Thr. 1 of

Chairman M. Vishnu Pandare And Anr.

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors.

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 275 OF 2026 Vithalai Mahila Dudh Vyavsayik Sanstha Maryadit Thr. Chairman Director And Ors INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 276 OF 2026 Navjeevan Sahakari Dudh Vyavsayik Sanstha Maryadit Thr. Secretary Director INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 274 OF 2026 Jotirling Sahakari Dudh Vyavsayik Sanstha Maryadit Thr. Secretary Director And Ors INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 272 OF 2026 2 of

Bhagwan Pandurang Dinde Sahakari Dudh Vyavsayik Sanstha Maryadit The State Of Maharashtra And Ors INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 273 OF 2026 Swargiya Chandrappa More Sahakari Dudh Vyavsayik Sanstha Maryadit Boriwade Thr. Its Chairman The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary And Others INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 277 OF 2026 Kurkundeshwar Sahakari Dudh Vyavsaiyk Sanstha Maryadit Pernoli Thr. Chairman Sanket Balaso Sawant Director Prakash Tukaram Belwade INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 278 OF 2026 Shri Lingbhairi Sahakari Dudh Vyavsayik Sanstha Maryadit Thr. Its Chairman Anant Tukaram Kasabale Mahadeo Sahakari Doodh Vyavsayik Snasha Maryadit 3 of

Mr. S. S. Patwardhan (through VC) i/b Mr. Bhooshan Mandlik for applicants in IA 1980/2026, IAST 1985/2026, IA 278/2026 and 272/2026.

Mr. Satish B. Talekar a/w Ms. Madhavi Ayyappan a/w Ms. Vishakha Patil a/w Mr. Saurabh P. Veer i/b Talekar and Associates for the petitioner Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, senior advocate a/w Mr. S. R. Ganbavle i/b Mr. Dhairyasheel Powar for respondent no. 5 Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for the State Mr. Chetan G. Patil a/w Mr. Prathamesh P. Magdum for applicant in IA 275/2026, 276/2026, 274/2026, 277/2026 Mr. Lous Shah a/w Mr. Rahul P. Kasbekar, Mr. Rushabh Phade for respondent no. 4 Mr. Tejpal Ingale a/w Ms. Vrunali Vilankar for applicant in IAST 2247/2026.

Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3-State. CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 25th MARCH, 2026.

P. C. :

1.

Heard.

2.

The present petition raises challenge to the legality and validity of an undated administrative direction/order issued by the Hon'ble Minister, Dairy Development Department, whereby liquidation proceedings against a large number of co-operative milk societies were directed to be kept in abeyance. 3.

The Petitioner contends that approximately 1108 societies were subjected to liquidation proceedings under the provisions of The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, the impugned 4 of

direction is undated, and not referable to any statutory provision; the same was issued on the basis of a letter addressed by respondent no. 5, by virtue of such direction, above referred societies, otherwise ineligible, are attempted to be included as a member in the ensuing elections of respondent no. 4.

4.

In backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order/direction under challenge is bad in law and is passed in excess of jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the same is in gross violation to the by-laws of respondent no. 4 vis-a-vis the Article 166 of the Constitution of India.

5.

During the course of submissions, learned senior Counsel Mr. Sakhare for the Respondent no. 5 has made a statement across the bar and fairly conceded to the unsustainability of the order under challenge.

6.

When confronted with same, the learned AGP for the respondent nos. 1 to 3, has adopted the submissions of Respondent No. 5 and prayed to pass an appropriate orders. 7.

Having heard the submissions from the respective sides, the impugned direction/order lacks individual consideration and 5 of

statutory sanction.

8.

Be that as it may. Given that the contesting respondents have fairly conceded to the unsustainability of the impugned direction/order, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9.

Resultantly, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause A and B only.

10.

In view of the aforesaid observations, all the interim applications are disposed of.

11.

Needless to state, in view of the disposal of the present petition, the interim order shall stand vacated. [SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.] 6 of