BABURAO KONDIBA ITHAPE Vs. SAHEBRAO RAMCHANDRA DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission accordingly. Rule will issue against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 only shri Sawant for Respondent No. 1 and Shri Pai for Respondent No 2 waive service. As these are the main parties concerned in the dispute before the Co-operative Court, Rule need not issue against the other Respondents. By consent the Petition is taken up for hearing forthwith. Advocates are heard.

(2.) IN my oooponion the entire mischief is due to the improper manner in which the Judges of the Co-operative Court including the Members of the appellate Court are exercising jurisdiction to issue interlocutory orders. They seem to have adopted no proper system either of procedural law or substantive law in disposing of such applications. On the dispute it would appear that an ex parte order was passed by the Judge, Co-operative Court on the application of the disputant. Later on, on that very day on the application of the Respondents to that dispute, an ex pane variation of the order was made by the very Judge. Finally, that night a further ex parte order was passed by the Member, Appellate Co-operative Court. The judge, Co-operative Court as well as Member, Appellate Co-operative court seem to have ignored or forgotten the basic requirement of the Court that as far as possible such ex parte orders should not be passed or if passed should be for limited duration and should be considered thereafter with notice to the aggrieved party. It is not necessary for me to comment further on the improper manner in which the Judges of the Co-operative court and Members of the Appellate Co-operative Court conduct their business. This has been commented upon by the High Court ad nauseam and the real mischief lies in the manner of their appointments by the Department of the Government They seem to function as administrative officers and not as judicial officers. That is the severest comment that can be made on any judicial tribunal and I rest content with such comment.

(3.) IN the instant case, since we are at the stage of ad-interim orders it would be appropriate, in my opinion, only to give directions that the Co-operative Court seized of Dispute No. 590 of 1988 shall try to dispose of the same expeditiously. In any event, there is a plea as to maintainability of the Dispute prior to the stage of declaration of election. This plea is based upon the decision of this Court in Madhukar Ganpatrao Somvanshi v. Sheshrao Narayanrao Biradar, [73 BLR 720), which decision is based on observations of the Supreme Court quoted in extenso in the said decision.