1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7312 OF 2008 Shri. Vasant s/o Rangnath Chorghade, Age-36 years, Occu:Agri., R/o-Dharkhed, Tq-Gangakhed, District-Parbhani. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Co-operative Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The Deputy Secretary, Co-operative and Textile Department, The State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 3) The Collector, Parbhani, 4) The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Parbhani, 5) The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, District-Parbhani, 6) The Gangakhed Taluka Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Ltd., Gangakhed, Through its Secetary, 2 7) The Municipal Council, Gangakhed, Through its Chief Officer, 8) Shri Balasaheb s/o Haribhau Niras, Age-42 years, Occu:Agriculture, And also Chief Administrator, Taluka Kharidi Vikri Sangh, Gangakhed, 9) Shri Hiraman s/o Dattarao Kadam, Age-50 years, Occu:Agriculture, And also Chief Administrator, Taluka Kharidi Vikri Sangh, Gangakhed, 10) Shri Dagadu s/o Dadarao Jadhav, Age-45 years, Occu:Agriculture, And also Chief Administrator, Taluka Kharidi Vikri Sangh, Gangakhed, 11) Shri Narsing Narayandas Tapadia, Age-42 years, Occu:Agriculture, And also Chief Administrator, Taluka Kharedi Vikri Sangh, Gangakhed, 12) Shri Gautam Rohinkar , Age-38 years, Occu:Agriculture, And also Chief Administrator, Taluka Kharedi Vikri Sangh, Gangakhed, 13) Shri. Suresh s/o Vasantrao Naladkar, Age-52 years, Occu: Business, R/o-Parali Naka, Parali Road, Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 14) Balu Mahadeobuva Bharati, Age-36 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o-Manthan Bear Bar, Parali Road, Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 3 15) Laxmanrao Rangnathrao Bhosale, Age-54 years, Occu: Manager of Resp. No.6, R/o- Main Road, Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani. 16) Chandrakant Ramchandra Gadewar, Age-40 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani. (Copy to be served on Shop No.1 newly constructed shopping complex of Kharedi Vikri Sangh, Main Road, Gangakhed), 17) Abhinay Suresh Nalatkar, Age-30 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Nagreshwar Galli, Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani. (Copy to be served on Shop No.2 newly constructed shopping complex of Kharedi Vikri Sangh, Main Road, Gangakhed), 18) Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte, Age-52 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani. (Copy to be served on Shop No.3 newly constructed shopping complex of Kharedi Vikri Sangh, Main Road, Gangakhed), 19) Omprakash Govind Kottalwar, Age-36 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Vednagar, Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani. (Copy to be served on Shop No.4 newly constructed shopping complex of Kharedi Vikri Sangh, Main Road, Gangakhed), 20) Dwarkabai Madhavbuwa Bharati, Age-60 years, Occu:Business, R/o: C/o- Prof. Subhash Bharati, Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani. (Copy to be served on Shop No.5 newly constructed shopping complex of Kharedi Vikri Sangh, Main Road, Gangakhed), 4 21) Anant Haribhau Niras, Age-40 years, Occu:Agri., R/o: At Post-Padegaon, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani. (Copy to be served on Shop No.7 newly constructed shopping complex of Kharedi Vikri Sangh, Main Road, Gangakhed), 22) Archana Vyankat Pampatwar, Age-32 years, Occu:Household, R/o: C/o-Abhay Pekam, Parali Naka, Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani. (Copy to be served on Shop No.8 newly constructed shopping complex of Kharedi Vikri Sangh, Main Road, Gangakhed), 23) Subhash Babarao Dhage, Age-33 years, Occu:Service, R/o- Late Prabhakarrao Patil D.Ed. College, Palam, Tq-Palam, Dist-Parbhani. (Copy to be served on Shop No.9 newly constructed shopping complex of Kharedi Vikri Sangh, Main Road, Gangakhed), 24) Vaijnath Patilba Latpate, Age-36 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Latpate Pan Center, Beside Kharedi Vikri Sangh, Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani. (Copy to be served on Shop No.10 newly constructed shopping complex of Kharedi Vikri Sangh, Main Road, Gangakhed), 25) Manohar Gangaram Kendre, Age-40 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Hotel Manthan, Parali Road, Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani. (Copy to be served on Shop No.11 newly constructed shopping complex of Kharedi Vikri Sangh, Main Road, Gangakhed), 5 26) Rajebhau Namdeo Niras, Age-44 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Bhagwati Nagar, Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani. 27) Devidas Atmaram Shinde, Age-28 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Masla, Tq-Gangakhed, District-Parbhani, 28) Vishwanath Pandharinath Andhale, Age-40 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani. (Copy to be served on Shop No.10 newly constructed shopping complex of Kharedi Vikri Sangh, Main Road, Gangakhed), 29) Angat Babarao Niras, Age-35 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Padegaon, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 30) Vyankat Eknathrao Chaure, Age-58 years, Occu:Ex-serviceman, R/o-Lecturer Colony, Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 31) Ashok Narayan Bhosale, Age-36 years, Occu:Business, R/o: At Post-Muli, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 32) Baburao Bhimrao Damre, Age-48 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Damre Galli, Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 33) Manikrao Harikishan Solanke, Age-43 years, Occu:Service, R/o-Rumna, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 6 34) Vijay Balasaheb Niras, Age-33 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Parali Naka, Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 35) Sahebrao Marotrao Bhosale, Age-55 years, Occu:Agri., R/o-Muli, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 36) Deelip Vitthal Alladwar, Age-33 years, Occu:Business, R/o-Vetal Galli, Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.P.D. Bachate Advocate with Shri. A.B. Girase Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.R.P. Phatke, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Shri. E.P. Sawant Advocate with Shri. M.P. Kale Advocate for Respondent Nos.6 & 15. Shri.S.V. Mundhe Advocate for Respondent No.7. Shri.P.R. Patil Advocate for Respondent Nos. 8 to 11. Shri.M.P. Kale Advocate for Respondent No.13 and 33. Shri. R.N. Dhorde Advocate with Shri.Sanjay Mundhe Advocate for Respondent Nos. 14, 16 to 22, 34 to 36. Shri.V.D. Hon Advocate for Respondent Nos. 24 to 27, 29 to 32. ... WITH 7 WRIT PETITION NO.1175 OF 2009 Adarsha Sukshikshit Berojgar Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Gangakhed, Through its Secretary, Shri. Baba s/o Madhavrao Salve, Age-31 years, Occu:Secretary, R/o-Dr.Ambedkar Nagar, Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, District-Parbhani. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Department of Co-op., Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The Director of Marketing, Pune, Tq. & Dist-Pune, 3) The District Deputy Registrar, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist-Parbhani, 4) The Assistant Registrar (Co-op.) Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani. 5) Gangakhed Taluka Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Ltd., Gangakhed, Through its Manager, Shri. Laxmanrao Bhosale, Age-45 years, Occu:Service, R/o- Office of Kharedi Vikri Sahakari Sangh, Main Road, Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani. 6) The Administrative Committee of Gangakhed Taluka Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Ltd., 8 Gangakhed, Through its Chairman, Shri. Balasaheb s/o Haribhau Niras, Age-40 years, Occu:Agri. R/o-Padegaon, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 6A) Hiraman s/o Dattarao Kadam, Age 45 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-Gopa, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 6B) Dagadu Dadarao Jadhav, Age-48 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-Dharasur, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 6C) Narsing Narayandas Tapadiya, Age-53 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 6D) Gautam Rohinkar, Age-38 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 7) Manik s/o Haribhau Solanke, Age-45 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 8) Abhinay s/o Sureshrao naladkar, Age-43 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 9) Shri. Ratnakar Ghutte, Age-48 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 9 10) Omprakash s/o Govindrao Kotalwar, Age-55 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 11) Dwarkabai Madhavbhua Bharati, Age-52 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 12) Vijay s/o Balasaheb Niras, Age-22 years, Occu:Agril, R/o-Padegaon, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 13) Anant s/o- Haribhau Niras, Age-43 years, Occu:Agril, R/o-Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 14) Archana Pampatwar, Age-57 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 15) Subhash s/o-Babarao Dhage, Age-38 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 16) Sahebrao Marotrao Bhosale, Age-39 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-Muli, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 17) Vaijnath s/o Patilba Latpate, Age-42 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 18) Deelip Vitthalrao Ulladwar, Age-35 years, Occu:Agril., 10 R/o-Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 19) Manohar s/o Gangaram Kendre, Age-44 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 20) Rajebhau s/o Namdevo Padegaon, Age-48 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-Padegaon, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 21) Devidas Atmaram Shinde, Age-35 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 22) Laxman Rambhau Padegaon, Age-47 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-Padegaon, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, 23) Devidas s/o Baburao Gadam, Age-43 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.V.D. Salunke Advocate with Shri. S.K. Chavan Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.R.P. Phatke, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Shri.E.P. Sawant Advocate with Shri. M.P. Kale Advocate for Respondent Nos. 6A) to 6D). Shri. R.N. Dhorde Advocate with Shri. Sanjay Mundhe Advocate for Respondent Nos. 11 and 19. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. 11 JUDGMENT RESERVEDC ON : 24TH JUNE, 2010. JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 23RD JULY, 2010 JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.7312 of 2008 prayed for directions to Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to declare election programme for holding election of Respondent No.6 Gangakhed Taluka Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Ltd., Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani. The Petitioner further prayed for granting injunction against the Authorities from appointing any Administrative Board. The Petitioner prayed for directions to prevent the Administrative Board from disposing of the immovable property of the Respondent No.6 Sangh. Byway of amendment, the Petitioner prayed for directions to Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to take the charge of the Respondent No.6 Sangh and to take possession of the property of the Sangh which was 12 illegally delivered to Respondent Nos. 13, 14 and other traders. The Petitioner prayed for interim relief. 3. In Writ Petition No.1175 of 2009 the Petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned resolution dated 3rd December, 2008 passed by the Board in respect of allotment of shops to Respondent Nos. 7 to 23 therein and for conducting enquiry. The Petitioner prayed for directions to re-allot the shops afresh. It is further prayed that Respondent No.3 be directed to reserve 10% shops in the allotment of shops for Educated Unemployed and for interim relief. 4. By an order dated 27th January 2009, notices were issued and ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (G) was granted in Writ Petition No.7312 of 2008 by the Division Bench of this Court. Prayer clause (G) reads as under: "Pending hearing and final 13 disposal of this writ petition, the respondent authority may please be directed to prevent the administrative board of director from disposing the immovable property of the respondent No.6 society". 5. On 2nd September, 2009, the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: B.R. Gavai & N.D. Deshpande, JJ.) passed order in Writ Petition No. 7312 of 2008. Para 12 and 13 of the Order reads thus: "12] The attitude of the respondent Nos.6/15 and 8 appears to be "Might is Right". The said act shows total disrespect and disregard to the orders passed by this Court and to the institution of administration of justice. No person howsoever high he may be can claim that he is above the law. Not only this, but the respondent No.15 also had an 14 audacity to file a false affidavit before this Court. Knowing very well that the property belonging to the respondent No.6 is transferred in utter disregard and in violation of the orders passed by this Court, he has an audacity to say in the affidavit filed on 20th April, 2009 that the property belonging to the respondent No.6 is not disposed of and that it will be put on hire for a period not exceeding 3 years. The said averment is totally false to the knowledge of the respondent No.15. 13] Issue notice to the respondent No.15 and respondent No.8 asking them to personally remain present in this Court on 15th September, 2009 and to show cause as to why action for committing contempt of court be not taken against them. In addition notice be issued to the respondent No.15, as to why action for committing perjury as 15 defined under Section 192 of the I.P.C. be not taken against him, under Section 340 of the Cr. P.C. Notice is made returnable on 15th September, 2009." 6. The matter thereafter was heard on some occasions and was adjourned from time to time. By an order dated 26th April, 2010 the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: Naresh H. Patil and A.V. Potdar, JJ.) directed to take cognizance of the contempt and issue notices to Respondent Nos. 8 to 12 and 15 in Writ Petition No.7312 of 2008 under the Contempt of Courts Act. They were directed to appear before the Court assigned with hearing of Contempt Petitions. This Court further directed that operation and execution of the lease deeds executed in favour of the allottees be suspended until further orders. This Court further directed not to create any third party interest in respect of the shops. Notice for final hearing was issued at admission stage and both the Petitions were listed for hearing on 17th June, 2010. 16 7. The parties filed replies, counter replies, rejoinders, as full opportunity was given to them to put up their pleadings before this Court. 8. In substance, it is gathered from the record that the last elections of Respondent No.6 Sangh were held in the month of September, 1998. The term of the last elected Board of Directors of Respondent No.6 Sangh came to an end on 29th October, 2003. The Petitioner alleges that as Board of Directors of that time, failed to hold the election within the prescribed time, Respondent No.5 Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gangakhed, Tq-Gangakhed, Dist-Parbhani, vide his order dated 20th December, 2003 in exercise of powers under Section 77 (A)(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act of 1960") dissolved the Board of Directors and appointed Mrs. S.L. Pundge, Co- operative Officer, First Class, as Administrator 17 for a period of six months. It is contended that Respondent No.2 - Deputy Secretary, Co-operative and Textile Department, vide letter dated 3rd January 2004, directed the Respondent No.4 - the District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Parbhani to appoint five persons as Administrative Board of Directors on Respondent No.6 Sangh. On 29th January, 2004 again the Respondent No.2 - the Deputy Secretary issued a communication directing Respondent No.4 - the District Deputy Registrar to appoint Administrative Board under the chairmanship of Shri. Balasaheb Haribhau Niris. The Petitioner contends that said Shri Balasaheb Haribhau Niris and Shri. Hiraman Dattarao Kadam were members of the Board of Directors which was dissolved by the Assistant Registrar for failure to conduct the elections within prescribed time. The Administrative Board did not hold elections from 2004 till 2008. The Petitioner contends that the financial position of Respondent No.6 Sangh, during the period deteriorated. The salaries and other consequential benefits to the employees were 18 not paid since the year 2001. The Board acted against the financial interest of the Sangh. The Board did not hold elections as they enjoyed power being members of the Administrative Board. 9. The Petitioner contends that Respondent No.6 Sangh in the General Meeting held in the year 2000, passed a resolution in respect of the immovable property of the Respondent No.6 Sangh. It is contended that though the term of the Administrative Board expired in the year 2004, neither the State Government nor the Authorities took steps to hold elections. The Petitioner apprehended that without authority of law, the Administrative Body would construct and dispose of the shopping complex to suit their ulterior motives for getting financially benefits. 10. The Petitioner contended that the order passed by this Court of granting interim relief in terms of prayer clause (G) was published in widely circulated newspapers on 15th February, 2009 and 19 17th February, 2009. Inspite of the same and inspite of the knowledge of passing of the order the Authorities, the Administrative Board permitted execution of mortgage deeds contrary to the order passed by this Court on 27th January, 2009. It is submitted that the Respondents committed contempt of Court. 11. On behalf of the Respondent No.4, Shri. Sunil Kulkarni, Assistant Registrar (Admn.) in the office of District Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies Parbhani, filed affidavit in reply. The deponent admitted that economic position of the Sangh at the relevant time was worst. The State Government invoked powers under Section 157 of the Act of 1960. The term of the Administrative Board of Directors was extended till 24th September, 2008. In Para 14 the deponent submits, that the Director of Marketing, Maharashtra State, Pune had given conditional permission to the proposal submitted by the Respondent No.6 and directed as per the proposal, 20 to construct shopping complex and allot the shops to the traders on hire basis only as per the Government valuations. 12. A rejoinder was filed by the Petitioner taking objection to the manner in which the shops were allotted and mortgaged in favour of the favoured persons and relatives of the members of the Board. It is alleged that the shops were leased out at lesser price. It is alleged by the Petitioner that though against single shop in the complex, Rs.15 to Lakhs were taken, but receipt of only Rs.3 Lakhs was given and in this manner the Board misappropriated huge amount. One of the serious contention raised by the Petitioner is that construction of the shopping complex was itself illegal and against the Municipal Laws. 13. On behalf of Respondent No.6 Sangh affidavit in reply came to be filed. The scheme for construction and allotment of shop was narrated. It was contended that Respondent No.6 21 was permitted to reconstruct the building and allot shops to the traders on hire basis as per the Government norms and conditions. The building of the Respondent No.6 was very old and the same was not fit for use. The Public Works Department had also, accordingly communicated the same. The deponent contended that application was filed for demolition of old building and construction of shopping complex on the same place along with the required fees, with the Municipal Council, Gangakhed. All the necessary documents were also furnished. The Municipal Council issued proclamation inviting objection if any from public at large on 8th October, 2008 and nobody had objected to the project within the stipulated time frame. The Respondent No.6 Sangh waited for considerable period for more than two months as contemplated under Section 189 of the Maharashtra (Municipal Councils), (Nagar Panchayats) and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short "the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act"). The Respondent No.6 alleges that as the President of 22 Municipal Council is from rival political group, the necessary permission was not issued in time inspite of the Respondent No.6 Sangh making compliances. It is alleged that the President of the Municipal Council constructed huge shopping complex near the place where the present shopping complex in question was constructed, that was one of the reason for the Municipal Council for non co-operation with the Respondent No.6 Sangh. In the light of the provisions of Section 189 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils Act the Respondent No.6 Sangh started construction of the new building by demolishing the old building. The communication dated 12th January, 2009 was addressed to the Manager of Respondent No.6 Sangh by the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, who demanded certain more information and also informed to stop further construction. The Respondent No.6 Sangh made necessary compliance and submitted the documents on 15th January, 2009. The deponent contends that the High Court passed an Order on 27th January, 2009, which was 23 communicated to Respondent No.6 on 9th February, 2009 and much prior to that the resolution was passed in the meeting of Board of Directors on 3rd December, 2008, to lease out the shops in the newly constructed building. The deponent submitted that as the financial condition of the Sangh was poor, funds were to be raised. The deponent contends that Respondent No.6 or its authority did not dispose of the portion of the immovable property. The shops were allotted on hire basis for three years and as per the conditions stipulated in the resolution. The Authority of the State granted permission to reconstruct the building on certain terms and conditions. There was no violation of any Order of the Court, according to the deponent. 14. The Petitioner filed affidavit in rejoinder, contradicting the stand of the contesting parties. 15. The Respondent No.6 also filed affidavit 24 in rejoinder and tendered unconditional apology to this Court. The deponent submitted that due to mistake, misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the order, the situation had arisen. It was submitted that for improving the financial position of the Sangh, the construction of shopping complex was undertaken. The amount received is deposited in the Bank. The Sangh collected an amount of about Rs. 82 Lakhs and Rs. 11 Lakhs were paid towards salary and dues of the employees which were pending since 2001 and at present Sangh is having Rs.21.74 Lakhs in the account. The deponent submitted that the Order of the Court was interpreted to mean that the shops could not be sold out but could be leased out. It is contended that the Sangh constructed 21 shops in the complex out of which 4 shops were retained for use of Sangh and on second floor 1800 sq. ft. space was made available for the office of Respondent No.6 Sangh. The shops were allotted to the highest bidders. Entire procedure was adopted in the transparent manner and there is no 25 illegality or irregularity in the same. 16. Respondent Nos. 8 to 11 also filed affidavit in reply. Respondent Nos. 6 and 15 further filed affidavit in reply on 29th September, 2009 and justified execution of lease in favour of the third parties. It is contended in the affidavit that the concerned Respondents have withdrawn the lease deeds executed on 24th September, 2009. 17. On behalf of Respondent No.8, affidavit in reply was filed and said deponent contended that the notices were issued cancelling the lease deeds executed in favour of the concerned persons. Affidavit in reply was filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.24 to 27 and 29 to 32 on 30th September, 2009. Affidavit in reply was also filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.16 to 23 and 34 on 15th September, 2009. 18. Shri. Bachate, learned counsel appearing 26 for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.7312 of 2009 submitted that as fresh elections of Sangh were held, now the relief to that extent does not survive. The Petition was therefore, contested on the decision taken by the Administrative Board of which two members were part of the earlier Board. The counsel vehemently argued that inspite of the order passed by this Court, the Sangh with an adamant attitude, went ahead to construct the shopping complex and by adopting illegal means and methods, allotted the shops to the favoured ones. Though huge amount was collected, but meager amount was credited to the account of the Sangh. Construction of shopping complex itself was illegal as Municipal Council did not accord permission to construct shopping complex. The counsel submitted that the Respondents are putting forth a theory that there was deemed permission and therefore they went ahead with the construction. In the submissions of the counsel, the Municipal Council had asked for more information from the Respondents, which was not 27 submitted and therefore the theory of having deemed permission cannot be utilised by the Respondents. The counsel submitted that the Authorities from the Office of the District Deputy Registrar and other concerned failed to check and control the activities of the Administrative Board, for which the enquiry is required to be initiated against them. They are responsible for the present situation. The counsel submitted that firstly, the constitution of the Administrative Board itself was illegal. There is no explanation as to why the elections were not held in time and Government Officers were helplessly watching the misdeeds of the Administrative Board. The counsel submitted that, it can be reasonably inferred that the Officers of the Co-operative Department had consented the misdeeds committed by the Administrative Board. The learned counsel submitted that names of some of the allottees were not part of the resolution. The Petitioner was willing to get the licensees who would have offered double the amount than what was offered by 28 the present allottees. Though the affidavit was filed on behalf of the Respondents that they had cancelled the lease deeds, the Sangh has not obtained possession of the said shops. The rules framed for disposal of the property and the State's policy in this regard were violated by the Board, in respect of disposal of public property. 19. Shri. P.R. Patil, learned counsel appearing for Administrative Board submitted that in the light of the provisions of Section 77 (A) (1) of the Act of 1960 the Board was appointed. The shops were allotted on lease basis. The decision was taken in the financial interest of the Sangh. The building permission was deemed to have been granted and therefore the old building was demolished and new was constructed. The Sangh had created comfortable space for running its office and holding meetings. The counsel submitted that Municipal Council does not say that the construction was illegal. Necessary permissions were granted. The learned counsel raised objection 29 to the locus standi of the Petitioner who is political rival of the members of the Administrative Board. The counsel submitted that the Petitioner has alternate remedy under the provisions