Megha 30_wp_10056_2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10056 OF 2019 Arjunan V. Krishnan and Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Hon’ble Minister for Co-operation Marketing and Textiles and Ors. ...Respondents ________________ Mr. Kishor Patil with Mr. Pratik Rahate, Mr. Anish Kikle and Ms. Akshada Nagrale for the Petitioners. Mr. Joel D’souza i/b. Mr. Suresh Kamble for Respondent No.5/Society. Mr. S.M. Khaire with Ms. Gayatri Shenvi for Respondent Nos.9 and 11 Ms. Sulbha Chipade, AGP for Respondent -State. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 24 AUGUST 2026. P.C.: 1) By this Petition, Petitioners challenge order dated 3 June 2019 passed by the Hon’ble Minister, Co-operation, dismissing Revision Application No.559 of 2018 and confirming the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar on 26 June 2018 dismissing Appeal No.392 of 2016. The Divisional Joint Registrar has in turn confirmed the report of the Enquiry Officer under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, by which various amounts of losses caused to Page No. 1 of 4 24 August 2026 2026:BHC-AS:34934 Megha 30_wp_10056_2019 Respondent No.5- Credit Society have been apportioned against the Petitioners and Respondent Nos.8 and 9. 2) I have heard Mr. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. D’souza, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5-Society, Mr. Khaire, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.9 to 11 and Ms. Chipade, the learned AGP for the Respondent-State and have considered the submissions canvassed by them. 3) The main contention sought to be urged by Mr. Patil is non- application of mind on the part of the Enquiry Officer, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority to the express admissions given by Mr. Girish Misal in the form of affidavit dated 24 September 2013 that he alone is responsible for misappropriation of amount of Rs.62,16,276/-. My attention is invited to Roznama before the Enquiry Officer in which again Mr. Girish Misal has apparently accepted the mistake in respect of the alleged misappropriated amounts. 4) Perusal of the order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar would clearly indicate that he has applied his mind to the said defence raised by the Petitioners. As a matter of fact, Mr. Girish Misal filed written submissions dated 16 April 2018 and resiled from the alleged admissions given in the form of affidavit. In his written submissions, he has stated that on 27 September 2013 he was called by the committee members in the office of the Society and was beaten by them. Then the committee members purchased a stamp paper from the stamp vendor in his name and he was compelled to sign the affidavit. Thus, Mr. Girish Page No. 2 of 4 24 August 2026 Megha 30_wp_10056_2019 Misal is no longer admitting his liability in respect of the alleged misappropriation. It appears that cheques were procured by the committee members from Mr. Girish Misal for recovery of lost amount. It is however, an admitted position that none of the cheques issued by him are encashed. The Revisional Authority has also taken note of this aspect in the order dated 3 June 2019. It therefore, cannot be contended that aspect of alleged admissions given by Mr. Girish Misal is totally ignored by the authorities below. 5) It is also sought to be contended by Mr. Patil that there is no independent determination by the Enquiry Officer qua responsibility of the Petitioners in respect of the alleged misappropriation. However, report of the Enquiry Officer would indicate a detailed discussion as to how the committee members have faltered in issuance of various cheques. Each of the cheques relating to misappropriation has been discussed in great detail by the Enquiry Officer. It therefore, cannot be contended that report of the Enquiry Officer suffers from the vice of perversity. In fact, the report of the Enquiry Officer would indicate serious discrepancies in the manner in which loans are sanctioned and cheques are issued. The findings would indicate that the loans of several persons, who were not even members of the Society are shown to have been sanctioned and the amounts against those loan accounts are siphoned off. In several cases, loans are sanctioned in the name of one person and the cheque is issued in the name of another person. In several cases, though the loans are shown to have been availed by some other persons, the beneficiary is shown as Girish Misal. Page No. 3 of 4 24 August 2026 Megha 30_wp_10056_2019 6) Considering the above position, I do not find any valid reason to interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer as concurrently upheld by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 4 of 4 24 August 2026 Signed by: Megha S. Parab Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 25/08/2026 16:07:40