1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NOS.6028 to 6033,6036 & 6037 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders. Mr. K.S.Patil, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.A.Patil,AGP, for Respondent nos 1 & 2. Ms Pushkarini B Kulkarni for respondent no.3. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 13/08/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respondents waive service. The writ petitions are heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. These eight writ petitions are directed against a common order dated 6.6.2009 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mumbai Division, Mumbai, in Appeal Nos.197 to 204 of 2007 under section 152 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, “the Act”). By the common order, all the appeals have been disposed of. T 2 The operative portion of the order dated 6.6.2009 reads thus:- “ORDER 1) The Appeal Nos.197/07 to204/07 are disposed of. 2) The impugned orders dated 03/10/2007 passed by Respondent-Deputy Registrar, Co-op Societies,MHADA, Mumbai u/s 35 of the M.C.S Act 1960 are hereby quashed and set aside. 3) The case is remanded back to the respondent Deputy Registrar for afresh consideration and decide the case purely on merits after following due process of law within two months.” (emphasis supplied) 4. The appeals were filed by the petitioners challenging the separate orders, all dated 3.10.2007, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies, under section 35 of the Act, thereby, the decision of expulsion of all the petitioners was approved. 5. It appears that the Deputy Registrar, vide order dated 15.4.2008 under section 78(1) of the Act, had appointed an Administrator and vide the order dated 6.6.2006 appointed Mr C.K.Chavan as the Administrator of respondent no.3-Society for a period of six months. The order appointing the Administrator was 3 challenged before the Divisional Joint Registrar by way of an appeal, being Appeal No.174 of 2004. The order appointing the Administrator dated 15.6.2004 was stayed vide order dated 19.1.2007 by the Divisional Joint Registrar pending hearing and final disposal of the appeal. Despite the order of stay granted by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Mr C.K.Chavan took a decision of expulsion of 13 members of the society including the petitioners under section 35 of the Act and submitted the proposal for its approval/confirmation before the Deputy Registrar. The Administrator also submitted a proposal for enrolling intervenors as members of the society before the Deputy Registrar and the Competent Authority. The Dy. Registrar, vide his order dated 3.10.2007, approved the decision of expulsion dated 1.5.2007. The order dated 3.10.2007 passed by the Deputy Registrar was challenged in the appeals preferred by the present petitioners. All the appeals came to be disposed of by the common order dated 6.6.2009, setting aside the order dated 3.10.2007, by which the 4 decision of expulsion was confirmed. In the meanwhile, an Appeal, being Appeal No.174 of 2004 challenging the order dated 15.6.2004, appointing the Administrator, which was preferred by the society through its Secretary. was heard and disposed of as infructuous vide order dated 1.1.2008. It was disposed of as infructuous in view of the fact that during pendency of the appeal, election of the Managing Committee of the society was held and new Managing Committee came into existence. As of today, the new Managing Committee is in-charge of the society. It is against this backdrop, in my opinion, it was not necessary for the Divisional Joint registrar, after allowing the appeals vide order dated 6.6.2009, to remand the matters to the Deputy Registrar for fresh consideration of the decision of expulsion taken by the Administrator. The Administrator had taken the decision, which was ex-facie wrong and illegal in view of the stay granted in Appeal No. 174 of 2004 to the order of his appointment dated 15.6.2004. In the circumstances, these 5 writ petitions deserve to be allowed. Rule in all the writ petitions, accordingly, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No costs. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)