Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 2441
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT NAGPUR BENCH
Rohit B. Deo, J.
Ganpat Maroti Ledange - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra, Through Minister For Cooperation - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 4500 of 2017
Decided On : 14-08-2018
K.P. Mahalle, Adv., C.A. Lokhande, Adv., A.H. Lohiya, Adv., V.S. Giramkar, Adv.
The seriousness of allegations and the obligation of a director to uphold the moral authority of the bank influenced the court's decision to refuse the stay and emphasize expeditious decision on disqualification proceedings.
Headnote:
Stay Proceedings - Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act - The court refused to stay the proceedings under section 73CA and 78A(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner and the need for expeditious decision on disqualification proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an elected director of a bank, sought to stay the proceedings initiated against him for defaulting in loan repayment. The court found the allegations serious and refused to stay the proceedings, emphasizing the need for expeditious decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no reason to stay the proceedings, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner's obligation as a director to refrain from undermining the moral authority of the bank.
Issues: Challenge to order refusing to stay proceedings under section 73CA and 78A(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner's obligation as a director influenced the court's decision to refuse the stay and emphasize expeditious decision on disqualification proceedings.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the direction for expeditious decision on disqualification proceedings, putting the authority on notice for adherence to the time schedule.
JUDGMENT
Rohit B. Deo, J. - Heard K.P. Mahalle, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.H. Lohiya, counsel for respondent 3, Shri V.S. Giramkar for respondent 4 and Shri C.A. Lokhande, the learned AGP for respondents 1, 2 and 5.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent.
3. The challenge is to an order passed by respondent 2 Additional Commissioner /Special Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Maharashtra rejecting an application to stay the proceedings moved by the petitioner in proceedings under section 73CA and 78A(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act ("Act" for short).
4. The petitioner, who is a elected director of respondent 3 bank is facing a serious allegation, to wit, he has defaulted in repayment of more than Rs. 6,43,00,000/ which is the outstanding amount in the loan account as on 31.7.2017.
5. The Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies initiated action under section 73CA and 78A(1) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be disqualified. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has challenged the show cause notice in revision before the Hon''ble Minister. The learned counsel further states that the Hon''ble Minister has not communicated any date of hearing.
6. The maintainability of a revision, if at all revision is preferred, is doubtful since admittedly only a show cause notice is issued. Be that as it may, the only order which is challenged, is an order refusing to stay the proceedings.
7. This Court sees no reason why the proceedings should be stayed. The order impugned does not suffer from any infirmity. It is alleged that the petitioner, who is an elected director, is a serious defaulter. Shri A.H. Lohiya, who appears on behalf of respondent 3 - bank would submit that the petitioner is somehow or the other clinging to office by instituting frivolous proceedings and then requesting the authority to stay the disqualification proceedings.
8. The accusation is indeed serious. As a director, the petitioner is expected to serve as a model and refrain from conducting himself in a manner as would undermine the moral authority of the respondent 3 - bank to recover defaulted loans from ordinary borrowers.
9. In this view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate that the disqualification proceedings should be decided by the authority as expeditiously as possible and in any event within 60 days of the date of communication of this order.
10. The authority is put on notice that if any unnecessary adjournment is granted or the time schedule stipulated for deciding the disqualification proceedings is not adhered to, serious view shall be taken.
11. The petition is disposed of in the afore stated terms.
12. Rule stands discharged. No order as to cost.
