Bombay High Court

ROHIDAS BAPUSO MURKUTEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU MINISTER AND ORS

Decided: 30 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court refused to entertain the writ petitions and disposed of them, directing the petitioners to pursue their pending appeals and seek a stay, if required, before the appellate authority.

Summary

The petitioners filed multiple writ petitions seeking interim protection, alleging that the appeals they lodged against enquiry reports issued under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 were not being heard. The court observed that the appeals were filed after a substantial delay and that the petitioners themselves had not acted with alacrity. Consequently, the court declined to entertain the writ petitions, directing the petitioners to prosecute the pending appeals and, if necessary, apply to the appellate authority for a stay of the recovery certificates. The court noted that the merits of the underlying issues remain open for determination in the pending appeals. All the writ petitions were therefore disposed of without any interim relief.

Issues considered

The court should entertain writ petitions seeking interim relief when the petitioners have delayed filing appeals against Section 88 enquiry reports.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a stay of the recovery certificates pending the hearing of their appeals.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — s. 88

Subjects

writ petition
interim relief
Section 88
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
delay in appeal
stay order
recovery certificate

Judgment

Neeta Sawant                                      902-907-WP-12831-2026& GROUP.docx


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 12831 OF 2026
                                     Alongwith
                      WRIT PETITION NO. 12835 OF 2026
                                     Alongwith
                      WRIT PETITION NO. 12836 OF 2026


Dilip Genubhau Kalate                                             ...Petitioner
                    : Versus :
State of Maharashtra, through the                                 ...Respondents
Minister of Co-operation, Marketing
and Textiles, Maharashtra at Mumbai
& Ors.


                                     Alongwith
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 12833 OF 2026
                                     Alongwith
                      WRIT PETITION NO. 12839 OF 2026
                                     Alongwith
                      WRIT PETITION NO. 12841 OF 2026


Rohidas Bapuso Murkute                                            ...Petitioner
                    : Versus :
State of Maharashtra, through the                                 ...Respondents
Minister of Co-operation, Marketing
and Textiles, Maharashtra at Mumbai
& Ors.


                                      PAGE NO. 1 of 3
                                 Wednesday, 30 September 2026
Neeta Sawant                                  902-907-WP-12831-2026& GROUP.docx




Mr. Bhalchandra S. Shinde, for the Petitioner in all petitions.

Mr. A.C. Bhadang, AGP for State in WP-12836 of 2026.

Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. GP with Smt. M.S. Srivastava, AGP for State in WP-
12831 of 2026.

Mr. Piyush Pandey ‘ B’ Panel Counsel with Smt. S.R. Crasto, AGP for State
in WP-12833 of 2026.

Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Addl. GP with Ms. S.D. Chipade, AGP for State in
WP-12835 of 202.

Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. GP with Mr. P.V. Nelsonrajan, AGP for State in WP-
12839 of 2026.



                                       CORAM:        SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                        DATED:       30 SEPTEMBER 2026.


P.C.:


1)             Petitioners have already preferred Appeals before the
Hon’ble Minister (Co-operation) against the impugned Enquiry Reports
issued under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,
1960 (MCS Act).        It appears that the Appeals are lodged after
substantial delay. Petitioners have filed the present petitions seeking
interim protection complaining that the Appeals preferred by them are
not being taken up for hearing. Petitioners themselves have not acted
with necessary alacrity and are now complaining about Appeals not
being taken up for hearing in an expeditious manner. In that view of the
matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petitions.


                                  PAGE NO. 2 of 3
                             Wednesday, 30 September 2026
Neeta Sawant                                 902-907-WP-12831-2026& GROUP.docx


2)             Petitioners need to prosecute the pending Appeals.            It
would be open for them to apply before the Appellate Authority to take
up atleast the stay applications for expeditious hearing. If such request
is made, I am sure that the Hon’ble Appellate Authority would atleast
consider applications for stay considering the position that notices have
been issued towards implementation of the Recovery Certificates.


3)             All issues on merits are expressly kept open. The Writ
Petitions are accordingly disposed of.



                                               [SANDEEP V. MARNE , J.]




                                 PAGE NO. 3 of 3
                            Wednesday, 30 September 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.