JUDGMENT Manish Pitale, J. - Heard learned counsels for the rival parties. 2. By this writ petition the petitioners, who are elected Directors of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Yavatmal, have challenge various orders and enquiry report before this Court. The principal grievance is against the show cause notice dated 26.02.2018 issued by the respondent No.2 District Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Yavatmal, whereby an explanation has sought from the petitioners as to why action under Section 45(1) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short the said Act), ought not to be taken against the committee and its Directors. 3. The background facts pertaining to the present case are that a complaint was lodged on 13.11.2017 by one Kishor Shankarrao Bade, alleging acts of illegalities being committed by the petitioners as Directors of the said committee. The respondent No.2 constituted a squad of three members to enquire into the said complaint. The said squad submitted a report to the respondent No.2 on 20.01.2018. In this report certain adverse findings were rendered against the petitioners. It was on the basis of this report that the respondent No. 2 issued the aforesaid show cause notice to the petitioners under Section 45(1) of the Act, which could lead to supersession of the committee itself. 4. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid enquiry report of the squad dated 20.01.2018 by approaching the respondent No.1 i.e. the Divisional Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Yavatmal under Section 43 of the aforesaid Act. By order dated 13.06.2018, the respondent No.1, acting as the Revisional Authority, rejected the said application filed by the petitioners. Thereafter, on 14.06.2018, the respondent No.2 adjourned the proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice dated 26.02.2018 issued under Section 45(1) of the aforesaid Act, recording that the challenge raised to the aforesaid report by the petitioners before the Revisional Authority was yet to be decided, perhaps because of the fact that the respondent No.2 was unaware that the revision application of the petitioners was already dismissed on the earlier day i.e., 13.06.2018. 5. 5. In this situation, the petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging the report dated 20.01.2018 submitted by the squad, the show cause notice dated 26.02.2018 issued by the respondent No.2 under Section 45(1) of the aforesaid Act, the order dated 13.06.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 dismissing the revision application of the petitioners and order dated 14.06.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 while adjourning the proceedings undertaken as per show cause notice dated 26.02.2018 issued under Section 45(1) of the aforesaid Act. 6. The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the enquiry as directed by the respondent No.2 by constituting the squad of three members by order dated 28.11.2017, was an enquiry as contemplated under Rule 117 read with Section 40 of the Act. It was submitted that after the enquiry report was submitted, the respondent No.2 was required to issue a show cause notice to the petitioners so as to afford them an opportunity to raise objections to the findings rendered in the said report. One of the objections raised on behalf of the petitioners was that the report was signed only by one member, although it was a three member committee which submitted the report. It was further submitted that a notice under Section 45(1) of the aforesaid Act could not have been directly issued by the respondent No.2 by relying upon the aforesaid enquiry report, without first exhausting the stage of Rule 117 (4) of the said Rules. It was conceded that challenge raised to the said enquiry report by filing revision application under Section 43 of the aforesaid Act before the respondent No.1 was a mistake and consequently it was contended that the order dated 13.06.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 dismissing the revision application of the petitioners was also without jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Baliram Dadaji Nasar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., dated 30.09.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.5226/2015, wherein a Division Bench of this Court had emphasized upon the necessity for the District Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies to give an opportunity of hearing under Rule 117(4) of the Rules to the concerned persons, including the members of the Marketing Committee before passing an order on such report. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 submitted that since the report was submitted by a squad of three persons, it being signed by the person who was heading the squad was sufficient and that the fundamental ground raised as an objection to the said enquiry report was wholly unsustainable. It was further submitted that since the petitioners themselves had challenged the said enquiry report before the respondent No.1 by filing revision application under Section 43 of the said Act and suffered an adverse order, they could not be permitted to now contend that they were entitled to raise the grounds of challenge as raised in the present writ petition before the respondent No.2, particularly because the respondent No.2 was admittedly an authority inferior to respondent No.1. It is further submitted that when material was before the respondent No.2 in the form of the enquiry report, notice issued under Section 45(1) of the aforesaid Act could not be found fault with and that in any case, petitioners had an opportunity to have their say before the respondent No.2 pursuant to the aforesaid show cause notice issued on 26.02.2018. On this basis it would contended with the writ petition deserved to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material on record. The source of the institution of enquiry by its squad constituted by order dated 28.11.2017 by the respondent No.2, appears to be Section 40 of the said Act which provides that a Director or any officer authorized by him by general or special order in this behalf may hold enquiry into the affairs of the market committee. In this context Rule 117 of the Rules assumes significance because it lays down the manner in which an enquiry or an inspection may be conducted. Rule 117(4) of the said Rules reads as follows:- "The person authorised to conduct the enquiry or inspection shall submit the report to the Director, on all the points mentioned in the order referred to in sub-rule (1). The report shall contain his finding and the reasons therefor supported by such documentary or other evidence as recorded by him during the course of his enquiry or inspection. The report shall contain his finding and the reasons therefor supported by such documentary or other evidence as recorded by him during the course of his enquiry or inspection. The Director shall pass such order thereon as may be considered just after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the concerned persons including the members of the Market Committee." 9. A perusal of the above quoted Rule shows that once an enquiry report is received, the Director or any officer authorised by him can pass an order thereon after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the concerned persons, including members of the market committee. 10. In the present case, after the enquiry report dated 20.01.2018 was received by the respondent No.2, as a delegate of the Director, he was expected to follow the mandate of Rule 117(4) of the Rules and to issue notice to the petitioners and other concerned persons before passing an order on the said enquiry report. This would give an opportunity to the petitioners and other concerned persons to raise objections, if any, with regard to the findings rendered in the enquiry report. But, in the present case the respondent No.2 failed to follow the mandate of Rule 117(4) and directly jumped to Section 45(1) of the aforesaid Act by issuing show cause notice dated 26.02.2018 to the petitioners to show cause as to why appropriate action under the said provision ought not to be taken on the basis of the said enquiry report. 11. Due to the respondent No.2 having skipped the stage of opportunity expected to be given to the petitioners under Rule 117(4) of the said Rules and jumping to Section 45(1) of the aforesaid Act, prejudice is certainly caused to the petitioners, in as much as they have been deprived of an opportunity to challenge the findings of the said enquiry report on merits. Therefore, the show cause notice dated 26.02.2018, is rendered unsustainable. 12. There can be no doubt about the fact that the petitioners ill advisedly challenged the enquiry report itself by filing revision application before the respondent No.1 under section 43 of the said Act. A perusal of the said provision shows that such an enquiry report certainly could not have been made subject matter of challenge in a revision application before respondent No.1. A perusal of the said provision shows that such an enquiry report certainly could not have been made subject matter of challenge in a revision application before respondent No.1. Consequently, although the respondent No.1 rejected the said revision application, the order passed by the respondent No.1 was without jurisdiction and this aspect was not considered by the respondent No.1 at all while passing the order dated 13.06.2018. 13. In view of the above, it becomes clear that the show cause notice dated 26.02.2018 issued by the respondent No.2 was unsustainable and the order dated 13.06.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 in the revision application was rendered without jurisdiction. Therefore, the said orders are quashed and set-aside. In so far as the report dated 20.01.2018 is concerned, this Court refrains from making any comment on the merits of the same, since under Rule 117(4) of the Rules, the respondent No.2 is expected to issue notice to the petitioners and other concerned persons on the basis of the said enquiry report and then pass an appropriate order. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned orders dated 26.02.2018 and 14.06.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 and the impugned order dated 13.06.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 are quashed and set-aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to issue an appropriate notice and grant sufficient opportunity to the petitioners and other concerned persons under Rule 117(4) of the said Rules, in connection with the enquiry report dated 20.01.2018. The petitioners and other concerned persons, if any, would be at liberty to raise all objections available to them in respect of the enquiry report dated 20.01.2018. The respondent No.2 shall conclude the proceedings under Rule 117(4) of the Rules, expeditiously. 15. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms.