Bombay High Court
Mukund Bhilal Dodia (Deleted) And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary ... on 4 July, 2024
Author: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Bench: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
906-WP-13102-23.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.13102 OF 2023.
Mukund Bhilal Dodia (deleted) and
Ors. ...Petitioners.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents.
------------
Mr. Nirman Sharma i/b Mr. Rajiv Mane for the petitioners.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, GP a/w. Ms. Tanu Bhatia, AGP for respondent-State.
Mr. Sandesh Deshpande for respondent No.4.
Mr. D. V. Sawant a/w. Mr. V. L. Indulkar for respondent No.5.
------------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Date : 4th July, 2024. P. C. :
1. By this petition, exception is taken to two orders dated 4 th October, 2023 and 6th October, 2023 passed by the Respondent No.2- Deputy Registrar by which the petitioners who are the committee members came to be disqualified and administrator came to be appointed. During the hearing of the said petition the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the order of disqualification of the members was passed on 4 th October, 2023 on legally unsustainable grounds without any notice to them and immediately within a period of two days thereafter i. e. on 6 th October, rsk 1 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2024 05:56:24 ::: 906-WP-13102-23.doc 2023, an administrator came to be appointed.
2. By order dated 16th April, 2024 this Court had directed the respondent No.2 to file affidavit in reply within a period of one week and ad-interim was granted in terms of prayer clause (c). Subsequently, respondent No.2-the Deputy Registrar-Kishan Ratnale filed an affidavit-in-reply dated 22nd April, 2024 stating that both the orders were passed on 4th October, 2023 and the officer signed both the orders on the same date, however the orders were sent by the clerk on two different dates. The copy of the order of appointment of Administrator which according to the petitioner was passed on 6 th October, 2023 was annexed as Exhibit R3 at page 94 of the affidavit in reply.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners would point out that in order to support the stand that both the orders were passed on 4th October, 2023, there has been a tampering of office record as the date of 4th October, 2023 of respondent No.2 has been inserted subsequently in the order of 6 th October, 2023. In view thereof, this Court had called for the original file from the office of the Deputy Registrar and the respondent No.2 was also directed to remain present.
4. Upon perusal of the original file, it appears that the document which is annexed to the Affidavit-in-reply is part of the original file rsk 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2024 05:56:24 ::: 906-WP-13102-23.doc which is produced.
5. However the learned counsel for the petitioner has tendered a copy of the order of 6th October, 2023 which was served upon them, which has original signature of respondent No.2 and on the said document there is no date below the signature of respondent No.2. Upon query by this Court, learned AGP is unable to offer any satisfactory explanation as regards the discrepancy in the copy which was served upon the petitioners which does not contain any date and the document with the date which forms part of the original file. Further the copy sent to the petitioners is unsigned and explanation given is that it is an office copy and the signature appears only at bottom right hand side of the page. The original office record shows the signature of respondent No.2 at the end of the order as well as on bottom right hand side of the page.
6. There is another reason to prima facie hold that the order of 6th October, 2023 was subsequently tampered with by putting date of 4 th October, 2023. Order of 6th October, 2023 makes a reference to the order of 4th October 2023 passed under Section 75 (5) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS Act). In event both these orders were passed on the same day there would not have been any reference to the order of 4th October, 2023 passed under Section 75 (5) of the MCS Act. If both the orders were passed on the same rsk 3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2024 05:56:24 ::: 906-WP-13102-23.doc date, the only observation which would have obviously come in the order was that today itself order has been passed for disqualification of the members. As there is a reference to an order passed on 4 th October, 2023 prima facie, it appears that the order of 6 th October, 2023 was in fact passed on 6th October, 2023 and date of 4th October, 2023 was inserted subsequently.
7. Prima facie , it appears that in view of the stand taken by the petitioner that within a period of two days, the order of appointment of administrator has been passed there has been a tampering of original record by putting the date below the signature of the order passed on 6th October, 2023. Prima facie, I am satisfied that there is interference with the administration of justice necessitating issuance of notice in contempt jurisdiction.
8. Issue notice to respondent No.2 Kishan Ratnale, the deponent to the affidavit-in- reply and the author of the order dated 6 th October, 2023 under Rule 9 of Chapter XXXIV of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules returnable on 25th July, 2024.
9. Ad-interim relief granted earlier to continue till next date.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
rsk 4 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 06/07/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2024 05:56:24 :::