Judgment :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 30th June, 2009 passed by learned Minister in Proceeding No. APP/1708/Pra. Kra./695/15S (Annexure-P). By this order dated 30th June, 2009, learned Minister allowed Appeal No.695 of 2008 filed by Respondent No.4 under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. A few facts of the present case are as under: 3. The Petitioner was elected as Director of Jalna Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd. Jalna for the period commencing from 2005 to 2010. The election officer i.e. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jalna published the programme of the election for the purpose of electing Board of Directors of Jalna Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd. Jalna. As per the election programme, following stages were decided by the election officer: TABLE 4. The Petitioner submitted his nomination form from the open constituency. Thereafter the nomination of the Petitioner was declared to be valid by the election officer. The Petitioner was elected as Member of Board of Director from the open constituency. The Respondent Nos.4 and 5 submitted application on 5th May, 2008 with the Respondent No.3 i.e. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad and thereby prayed for disqualification of the Petitioner on the ground of defaulter. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submitted in their application that the nomination form of the Petitioner was objected by them but the objection was rejected by the election officer. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submitted that the Petitioner was defaulter on the date of filing of the nomination form as per Section 73 FF (1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. On the basis of the said application, the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad issued show cause notice to the Petitioner stating that as per enquiry report dated 25th April, 2008 prepared by the Assistant Director, Co-operative Societies, Jalna, it transpired that the Petitioner had secured loan amount of Rs.5 Lacs on 25th January, 1994 against the pledge of goods. Apart from this, in the year 1996, the Petitioner had also obtained the cash credit limit against hypothecation of Rs.20,00,000/-. Apart from this, in the year 1996, the Petitioner had also obtained the cash credit limit against hypothecation of Rs.20,00,000/-. Therefore, on 1st April, 2004, total amount of Rs.24,47,000/- was due from the Petitioner and therefore the Petitioner was served with the notice why action should not be taken against the Petitioner under Section 73 FF (1)(d) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The Petitioner replied the said show cause notice by his reply dated 15th July, 2008 and denied that there were dues of Rs.24,45,000/- as on 1st April, 2004. He further mentioned in his reply that he has refunded the total amount with interest before 26th November, 2005 and there were no dues against him in respect of both the loan transactions after the said date i.e. 26th November, 2005. He further denied that a sum of Rs. 24,45,000/- was due as on 1st April, 2004. Considering the reply filed by the Petitioner, Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad, by his Judgment dated 20th September, 2008, held that the Petitioner had deposited the entire loan amount on 26th November, 2005 and therefore the Petitioner did not become defaulter. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 20th September, 2008 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submitted an appeal before the learned Minister under Section 152 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, thereby challenging the Judgment and order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad and prayed for disqualification of the Petitioner. The said appeal was allowed by the learned Minister on 30th June, 2009 holding that the Petitioner could not be a Director of Jalna Peoples Co-operative Bank, Jalna as he failed to repay the loan amount to the Bank on the date of filing his nomination form. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the impugned show cause notice issued by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad dated 29th May, 2008 itself was bad in law. He submitted that in the said show cause notice, the authority stated that as on 1st April, 2004 the loan of Rs.24,47,000/- was due and payable by the Petitioner to the Bank and therefore Section 73 FF of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was not applicable. He submitted that in the said show cause notice, the authority stated that as on 1st April, 2004 the loan of Rs.24,47,000/- was due and payable by the Petitioner to the Bank and therefore Section 73 FF of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was not applicable. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the present election was for the period of 2005 to 2010 and last date for submitting the nomination form was 26th October, 2005. Therefore, whether the Petitioner was defaulter on 1st April, 2004 in view of Section 73 FF of the said Act is not material for the election for the period from 2005 to 2010. As the show cause itself is bad in law, the impugned order passed by the learned Minister is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that Section 73 FF of the said Act provides that if the member is a defaulter and/or failed to pay any installment of the loan granted to him, then only Section 73 FF of the said Act is applicable. In the present case, the Petitioner availed the cash credit facility, which is not loan. Cash credit facility is provided for one year. There is no agreement for payment of installment in the said cash credit facility. Not only that, the Bank never issued any notice calling upon the Petitioner to pay overdue installments and therefore the Petitioner cannot be held as defaulter under Section 73 FF of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the show cause notice dated 29th May, 2008 does not say whether on 27th November, 2005 any amount was due and payable by the Petitioner and whether thereby the Petitioner was defaulter on 27th November, 2005. This itself is a fatal flaw and notice itself is vitiated on account of non disclosure of cause of action. It does not call for any further investigation. He further submitted that no show cause notice with respect to the specific date i.e. 27th November, 2005 is given. Therefore, there was no occasion to offer any explanation about the facts prevailing on 27th November, 2005. He further submitted that without giving an opportunity of hearing in that behalf, there could not be any order of disqualification. He further submitted that no show cause notice with respect to the specific date i.e. 27th November, 2005 is given. Therefore, there was no occasion to offer any explanation about the facts prevailing on 27th November, 2005. He further submitted that without giving an opportunity of hearing in that behalf, there could not be any order of disqualification. In support of these submissions, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the Authority in the matter of Lalita Malhari Barve vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in [2005 (5) Mh. L.J. Page 401] and the Authority in the matter of Pundlik vs. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chandrapur and others, reported in 1991 C.T.J. Page 577. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.4 submitted that learned Minister rightly held that the Petitioner was defaulter and therefore it is not necessary to interfere the said order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for Respondent No.4 submitted that Respondent No.4 made several complaints to the Authorities that the Petitioner was a defaulter and necessary action be taken in accordance with the provisions of Section 73 FF of the said Act. With a great persuasion, the Authority on 29th May, 2008 had issued show cause notice as per provision of Section 73 FF read with Section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 calling upon the Petitioner to show cause on the complaint filed by Respondent No.4 and on the report submitted by the Assistant Registrar dated 25th April, 2008 pointing out that on 25th January, 1994 the Petitioner had availed Rs.5,00,000/- pledge of goods loan and similarly in the year 1996 the Petitioner had availed the cash credit facility for Rs.20,00,000/- and the said amount has been defaulted and the amount outstanding appears to be Rs.24,47,000/-. Learned counsel for Respondent No.4 submitted that admittedly on the date of filing of nomination i.e. on 26th October, 2005 the Petitioner failed to clear his cash credit limit granted by the Bank. Learned counsel for Respondent No.4 took me through the statement of account issued by the Jalna Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jalna for the period 1st April, 2005 to 20th November, 2005. Learned counsel for Respondent No.4 took me through the statement of account issued by the Jalna Peoples Cooperative Bank Ltd., Jalna for the period 1st April, 2005 to 20th November, 2005. He further submitted that it was crystal clear from the statement of account of the Bank that for the period from 14th June, 2005 till 26th October, 2005, more than Rs.20,00,000/- were shown as due and payable by the Petitioner to the Bank. This itself shows that on the date of filing of nomination i.e. 26th October, 2005 the Petitioner was defaulter as per Section 73 FF of the said Act. He submitted that the Petitioner paid the entire amount on 30th November, 2005 i.e. after the date of election and therefore the Petitioner squarely comes under the purview of Section 73 FF of the said Act and therefore the order passed by the learned Minister is according to law. In support of his submission, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 relied on following Authorities: (i) Pundlik Kadhav vs. District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chandrapur and others, reported in 1990 Mh. L.J. Page 925, (ii) Pundlik vs. District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chandrapur and others, reported in 1991 C.T.J. Page 577, (iii) Ravi Amrutrao Bagde vs. Commissioner, Amravati Division and others, reported in 2006 (2) Mh.L.J. Page 33, (iv) Vijaysingh Krishnarao Parbat vs. Returning Officer, Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. and others, reported in 2003 (2) Mh. L.J. Page 485, (v) Murlidhar Bhaulal Malu vs. Sudhakar Honaji Patil and another, reported in 1987 Mh. L.J. Page 944. 9. Though both the counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner as well as Respondent No.4 raised several objections and issues in the present matter, I do not find it necessary to deal with each and every issue. Present Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is not proper to reappreciate the documents produced by the parties before the Authority. In my view, following two points for determination require to be answered in the present Petition: (1) Whether the Petitioner can be held as 'defaulter' under Section 73 FF of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960? (2) Whether the show cause notice issued by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad dated 29th May, 2008 discloses any cause of action? 10. (2) Whether the show cause notice issued by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad dated 29th May, 2008 discloses any cause of action? 10. In the present case, the Bank allowed cash credit facility to the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/-. Whether the cash credit facility can be termed as a loan in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is require to be seen. Loan is always sanctioned by the Bank for a particular period. There is always agreement between the parties that borrower will repay the loan at particular stage, time, by installments and/or lumpsum on particular date. Once the loan is sanctioned, borrower has to pay interest on the said amount. Whereas, on the other hand, if cash credit facility is allowed to the borrower, in that case the borrower is liable to pay interest on that amount as and when he avails the said facility. If a Bank sanctioned cash credit facility to the borrower and the said facility is not availed by the borrower throughout the period, in that case there is no question of payment of any interest on the amount involved in the cash credit facility. Not only that, in a cash credit facility, borrower is entitled to withdraw the excess amount from his account up to a particular limit only. In other words, interest on the said amount is to be calculated on daily or monthly basis and the borrower pays for what he uses. This shows that liability to pay the interest by the borrower arises as and when he avails the said facility of cash credit. Whereas in the case of loan, once the loan is sanctioned and the amount is transferred to the credit of borrower's account, liability to pay interest starts immediately. In the present case, the Petitioner availed cash credit facility. As per Section 73 FF of the said Act, if a committee member fails to pay any installment of the loan granted to him, then only it can be treated as disqualification. 11. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 submitted that as per terms and conditions of cash credit facility, Petitioner was supposed to clear his account once in six months. 11. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 submitted that as per terms and conditions of cash credit facility, Petitioner was supposed to clear his account once in six months. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 submitted that in the present case the Petitioner failed to abide by the said terms and conditions, and therefore the learned Minister rightly held that the Petitioner was disqualified to become a Member of Board of Directors under Section 73 FF of the said Act. It is not possible to accept the submissions made by learned counsel for Respondent No.4 because nowhere it is stated in terms and conditions of the cash credit facility that the Petitioner has to repay the said amount in particular installments on particular date or in particular month. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot be declared as 'defaulter' within the meaning of Section 73 FF of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Point No.1 answered accordingly. 12. The next question is about show cause notice. Whether show cause notice discloses cause of action, is required to be seen. Bare reading of the show cause notice dated 29th May, 2008 shows that the same is issued on the basis that the Petitioner failed to clear his cash credit facility account on 1st April, 2004 to the tune of Rs.24,47,000/-. No where it is stated in the said show cause notice that on 27th November, 2005 how much amount was due and payable by the Petitioner and whether thereby the Petitioner was a 'defaulter' in view of Section 73 FF of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. In the matter of Lalita Malhari Barve (supra) the Bombay High Court held that if show cause notice is vague and does not disclose sufficient reason, then the order passed on the basis of said show cause notice is bad in law. Head Note (a) of the said Judgment reads as under: "(a) Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act (40 of 1965), SS. 55A and 55B Petitioners disqualified as President and Members of Municipal Council and debarred from contesting election to membership of council for period of six years – Show cause notices and impugned orders held to be vague and not disclosing sufficient reason to warrant action under section 55-A or 55-B – Orders bad in law and are quashed and set aside. It is now well established that a fair and proper hearing of the persons sought to be affected by the orders of administrative authorities exercising quasi judicial powers is a prerequisite for passing an order which entails civil consequences and that the orders so passed should disclose sufficient, clear and explicit reasons in support of such orders. In all these petitions, the Petitioners are accused of passing of resolutions on the subjects which were taken up for discussion at the eleventh hours without prior inclusion of the same in the agenda has been made. Petitioners were served with the show cause notice and thereafter respondent No.2 has passed the order after receipt of the replies from the petitioners to the said show cause notices. It is also a matter of record that the inquiry by the municipal administrative department was conducted and the report in respect thereof was made without hearing the petitioners and without knowledge thereof to the petitioners. A bare perusal of the report itself discloses that the same nowhere makes out any case sufficient to warrant action by the competent authority either under Section 55-A or section 55-B of the said Act. The report in fact is as vague as the show cause notices as well as the impugned orders. It is always to be borne in mind that any decision which would entail civil consequences to the party or person against whom the decision is taken the same should disclose analysis of the facts and the reasons for arriving at the conclusion warranting the decision. The charges as well as the orders passed are totally vague in relation to the allegations against the petitioners. No material appears to have been referred so as to justify any link between the alleged acts and the petitioners. Since the show cause notices and the impugned orders passed in these cases apart from being very vague do not disclose any sufficient reason which can warrant action either under section 55-A or 55-B the Act, the same are bad in law and cannot be sustained and therefore the entire proceedings are to be quashed and set aside." 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 submits that the show cause notice is very clear on the point of defaulter under Section 73 FF of the said Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 submits that the show cause notice is very clear on the point of defaulter under Section 73 FF of the said Act. He further submits that the statement of account produced on record itself shows that Petitioner failed to clear his cash credit account once in every six months as per terms and conditions of sanction. Clause No.11 of terms and conditions reads as under: "You should bring c.c. account in credit once in every six months." Therefore, the action taken against the Petitioner is according to law as per the submission of learned counsel for Respondent No.4. 14. I have gone through the show cause notice dated 29th May, 2004 issued by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. Bare reading of the said show cause notice shows that the Divisional Joint Registrar issued the show cause notice on the basis of amount due and payable as on 1st April, 2008, whereas the relevant date in the present case is 26th October, 2005 i.e. last date for filing nomination and/or 27th November, 2005 i.e. date of polling. Therefore, the show cause notice itself is vague and does not disclose any cause of action. Therefore, the action taken by the Authority on the basis of the show cause notice dated 29th May, 2008 is itself bad in law and same is liable to be set aside. In view of the facts and circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Minister (Co-operative) dated 30th June, 2009 in Appeal No.695 of 2008 filed by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is set aside. Writ Petition is allowed with no order as to the costs. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (A) which reads as under: "(A) The Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the judgment and order dtd. 30.06.2009 passed by the learned Minister in proceedings No.APP/1708/Pra.Kra./695/15-S (Annexure-P) and further be pleased to pass necessary orders for the said purpose." Petition allowed.