1 of 3 927-WP.4142.2020.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 927 WRIT PETITION NO. 4142 OF 2020 ASHOK VISHWANATHRAO JAGTAP VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 27th MARCH 2026 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Advocate for the respective parties. 2. By the present petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 08.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional Registrar (Recovery and Planning), Cooperative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune, as well as the judgment and order dated 03.06.2019 passed by the learned Minister for Cooperation, Marketing and Textile Department, Maharashtra State, Mumbai. 3. Mr. Salunke, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, submits that an inquiry under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, “the Act”) was conducted against the office bearers on 29.12.2012, incurring a cost of Rs.16,000/-. It is his contention that the order for recovery of the said amount under Section 85 of the Act came to be passed on 08.05.2015. According to him, Section 85 mandates that such an order must be passed within a Tauseef 2026:BHC-AUG:14511 2 of 3 927-WP.4142.2020.odt period of six months, and since the impugned order was not passed within the prescribed period, the same is time-barred. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 85 of the Act. 4. It is further submitted that the Petitioner had preferred a revision before the learned Minister, who initially granted stay to the impugned order vide order dated 16.05.2015. However, subsequently, by order dated 03.06.2019, the revision came to be dismissed. Hence, it is contended that the orders passed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, Mr. B. A. Shinde, learned AGP for the Respondent-State, supports the impugned orders and submits that the amount in question is not a liability but represents the cost incurred during the inquiry conducted under Section 83 of the Act. He submits that the Petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference. 6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the material on record, particularly the provisions of Section 85 of the Act, it appears that the amount sought to be recovered is towards the cost incurred by the Inquiry Officer in conducting the inquiry under Section 83 of the Act. The same cannot be construed as a liability in the strict sense. Merely because the order was not passed within a period of six months, that by itself would not Tauseef 3 of 3 927-WP.4142.2020.odt vitiate the recovery, especially when the cost is required to be borne by the concerned office bearers/society. The authorities have, therefore, rightly passed the impugned orders. I do not find any error or illegality warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. 7. Hence, the present petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef