- (1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Counsel appearing for the respective respondents waive service.
(2.) AS short question is raised, petition taken up for final hearing forthwith, by consent.
(3.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra State Cooperative Appellate Court, Mumbai Bench, Pune dated August 1, 2003 in appeal No. 108 of 2003. The petitioner Society filed dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the said 'act') before the Co-operative Court No. 1, Kolhapur being CCS No. 5001 of 2003. The background in which the said dispute has been filed is that the respondent No. 2 society has been permitted to be registered as a Co-operative Society, whose area of operation would be overlapping with the area of operation of the petitioner society. The petitioner has challenged the said decision of the Competent Authority, according permission to register the respondent No. 2 society. That matter is subjudice before the appropriate forum. In that proceedings, grievance has been made that the list of members produced by the respondent No. 2 society for seeking registration is not genuine and that the names referred to in the said that list are already members and continue to be members of the petitioner society. It appears that the respondent No. 2 society has been registered on 28th July, 2002. Be that as it may, the respondent No. 2 society, after registration, applied for loan on behalf of its members to the respondent No. 1 bank. That request has been acceded to by the respondent No. 1 by Resolution dated 17th March, 2003. It is this Resolution which has been made subject matter of dispute before the Co-operative Court. In substance, the petitioner society has asserted that the respondent No. 1 has committed impropriety and illegality in allowing the loan application and to permit the respondent No. 2 society to disburse the loan to its members, especially, when the respondent No. 1 bank was fully aware about the dispute raised by the petitioner society regarding the manner of registration of the respondent No. 2 society and the grievance that the members enrolled by the respondent No. 2 society are bogus. It is on this basis, the dispute has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: " (A) The dispute may be allowed together with cost. (B) It may be declared that the loan sanction letter, got sanctioned by the defendant No. 2, the alleged society, from defendant No. 1 under an executive committee Resolution No. 30 dt. 17-3-2003, in the name of defaulter members of plaintiff society at Sr. No. 1 to 328, mentioned in the Appendix 'a' for the year 2003-2004, is illegal and a declaration may be made to that effect. (C) The perpetual injunction order may be passed against defendant No. 1 restraining the defendant No. 1 society from disbursing the loan amount as per abovementioned sanctioned loan sanction letter to the defendant no. 2, the alleged society. (D) The perpetual injunction order may be passed against the defendant no. 2, the alleged society, restrainin the defendant No. 2 from withdrawing the loan amount as per the abovementioned sanctioned loan-sanction letter. (E) Leave may be granted to amend the suit if required. (F) O)ther incidental reliefs may be granted in favour of the plaintiff. ";