1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4863/2009. ( Shri Somaji Tikaram Sonwane -: versus :- Magaswargiya Bahuuddeshiya Matsyapalan and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JANUARY 19, 2010. Heard Shri U.K. Bisen, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri H.D.Dubey, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 4 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.3. The elections of respondent no.1 society were due on 03.08.2009. The society took no steps to hold the elections by said time. The State Government on 27.07.2009 in exercise of powers under Section 73[1][B] of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 postponed those elections, because of State Legislative Assembly Elections. But then by the impugned order dated 20.10.2009 Administrator has been appointed and said Administrator has taken over the charge. Petition has been filed on 17.11.2009 contending that as State Government itself has postponed the elections, provisions of Section 73[h][1] of the Act were not applicable, and hence appointment of Administrator needs to be quashed and set aside. Provisions 2 of Bye laws of society are also relied upon to urge that in such situation exiting body is entitled to continue in office. It is apparent that, petitioners are trying to take shelter of Government notification dated 27.07.2009 postponing elections. Petitioners had not taken any effective steps to conduct the elections before due date, on the contrary the documents on record show that on 29.07.2009, 8 members of the Society are alleged to have conducted a meeting expressing inability to hold elections within the stipulated time because of some Court case and therefore, were seeking extension of own tenure. The said resolution is implemented by writing a letter to the Assistant Registrar on these lines on 30.07.2009. It is therefore, apparent that the petitioners were not ready and willing to hold elections within time as contemplated by law. In this situation, I do not find anything wrong with the appointment of Administrator. The Administrator is duty bound to hold elections in accordance with the law, at the earliest. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.