1 wp6975-10 sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6975 OF 2010 Shri Prabhakar Baban Gaikwad ..Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. M.S. Karnik for petitioner. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.. 1 to 3. Mr. G.S. Godbole i/b. S.R. Ranghe for respondent No.6. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE AND U.D. SALVI, JJ. DATED : 27TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. :- 1. We have heard Mr. Karnik, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Godbole, the learned counsel for respondent No.6. Mr. Nargolkar, the learned A.G.P. appears on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The petitioner is a member of respondent No.4 bank and he alleges that respondent No.6 has been acting in the manner prejudicial 2 wp6975-10 to the interest of the said bank, though he is one of the elected members of the Managing Committee / Board of Members of the said bank. He seeks a writ from this Court to disqualify respondent No.6. 3. The provisions of Section 78 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act are clear and it is for the District Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies to invoke such powers in a given case. The petitioner claims that on 18/06/2010 he had gone to the branch of respondent No.4 bank along with his wife and with an intention to invest Rs.25,000/- in fixed deposit. He happened to meet respondent No.6 in the bank and asked his advice. It is alleged that respondent No.6 advised him not to invest the money in respondent No.4 bank and instead invest the same in some other bank. He has brought this fact to the notice of the Chief Officer in his letter dated 19/06/2010. However, the averments in the petition are based on the correspondence between the bank, chairman and officer on special duty on the one hand and respondent No.6 on the other hand. The averments in para 6 itself spells out about the bonafides of the petitioner to approach this Court. 4. Be that as it may, we are satisfied that there is no case made out to entertain this petition and we have also perused the letter dated 10/02/2010 addressed by the District Deputy Registrar to respondent No.6. It is only thereafter, after 4 months, the petitioner 3 wp6975-10 claims to have approached the bank with an intention to invest. On such purported letters, a writ petition cannot be entertained to issue a writ of mandamus or directions to the statutory authorities to initiate proceedings against respondent No.6 for disqualification. 5. The petition is rejected summarily. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)