1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.385 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1570 OF 2008 Bholanath Bhoumik ...Appellant v/s Shamkumar Wadhawa and ors. ...Respondents Mr M.M. Vashi for Appellant. Mr R.S. Ghadge i/b Mr A.S. Desai for Respondent Nos. 1 to 9. Mr Milind More, AGP for Respondent Nos.10,11, 14 and 15. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.G. KETKAR JJ. DATE : 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009. 2 P.C. :- 1] Admit, heard finally by consent of the parties. 2] The facts that are relevant for disposing off this appeal are that the order dated 11th November 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition No.1570 of 2008 is challenged. That writ petition was filed challenging the order made under the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act 1960 removing the Managing Committee of the Society and appointing the Administrator in its place. It appears that by an interim order passed by the Court in that petition, the Managing Committee which was removed by the order passed under section 78 of the said Act, which was impugned in the petition, was permitted to remain in office and was also permitted to hold elections to the Managing Committee. Pursuant to the interim order, elections were held and new Managing Committee was elected. The learned Single 3 Judge by order dated 11th November 2008, because the new Managing Committee is in office, has permitted the petitioners to withdraw the petition. In our opinion, the course of action adopted by the learned Single Judge was not proper. If the interim order pursuant to which the elections were held by the Managing Committee which was to be removed from office by the order impugned in the petition, is not confirmed at the final hearing and the petition is withdrawn, then the order passed under section 78 of the said Act removing the Managing Committee will remain in field and it may render the elections to the new Managing Committee held by the Managing Committee which was removed by the order passed under section 78 of the said Act invalid. In our opinion, therefore, the learned Single Judge should have, if the petitioners wanted to withdraw the petition, either vacated the interim order or should have made the appropriate order in relation to the interim order. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. 4 3] The order impugned in the appeal dated 11th November 208 passed in writ petition No.1570 of 2008 by the learned Single Judge of this Court is set aside. That petition is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for de novo consideration and decision in accordance with law and considering the observations made hereinabove. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE R.G. KETKAR )