1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.1472 Of 2009 Sant Motiram Maharaj Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. Through its Chairman, Ganesh s/o Yadavrao Rokde R/o Palam, Taluka Palam, District Parbhani. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra And Others. ... Respondents. -------- Mr. A.R. Borulkar, Advocate for applicant. Mr. V.B. Ghatge, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1,3 and 4. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE: 8th JUNE, 2010 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, while appointing Administrator under Section 110A(iii) of 2 the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act (“the Act”) period of tenure of the Administrator was not mentioned. It was further submitted that in case Board of Directors is allowed to function then they would improve functioning of the Bank. 3) Affidavit-in-reply was filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 by Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Palam, Taluka Palam, District Parbhani. We have perused the same. We have perused the annexures to the reply and other relevant documents. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 have in detail quoted several instances of mal-functioning of the Board of Directors due to which the Reserve Bank of India was constrained to supersede the Board of Directors of the Bank and 3 requisition was sent by the Reserve Bank of India on 6 February 2009 for appointing the Administrator under section 110A(iii) of the Act. 4) The bank is an institution of faith. Banking affairs must be conducted with utmost dedication, sincerity and honesty. Therefore, the Board of Directors managing the affairs of the bank shall take abandon precaution while governing the affairs of the bank. Upto date record and accounts are required to be maintained. Complete transparency and fairness is expected from the Board of Directors of the bank. 5) Considering the affidavit-in-reply filed we do not find any error or apparent 4 mistake in the direction of the Reserve Bank of India to appoint Administrator on the petitioner bank. Even if the tenure of the Administrator is not mentioned in the impugned order, in the affidavit-in-reply the deponent has very categorically stated that the maximum period of the Administrator is not exceeding five years. 6) In the light of the same no interference is called for in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7) The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (K.K. TATED, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.1472.09