1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WP No.1793/2010 Pundlik Jairam Shrinath and others Vs. The Deputy Registrar, Coop. Scoieties and another. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. S. D. Chopde, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr. Fulzele, AGP for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Dhore, Adv. for the Interveners. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 28/9/2010 1] Heard Advocate Chopde for the petitioners, AGP Fulzele, for respondents 1 and 2 and Advocate Dhore for Interveners. 2] Today, Advocate Chopde has shown communication that licences have been issued to interveners. Advocate Dhore for interveners states that lincences are accordingly issued to the interveners. 3] The petitioners were the Managing committee Members. Their Managing Committee had not issued licences to these 17 members. The defence was that these 17 members though carried out fishing 2 did not pay royalty. In the light of earlier orders passed by this Court, the audit was undertaken and report of Auditor reveals that there were no outstanding against these persons. That report has been accepted by the respondents. 3] Today, contention is that for the amount of royalty received entries are not made in cash book of the society as per practice. Attention is invited to the grounds raised in this respect by amending writ petition particularly ground (k) and ground (i). The report of respondents 1 and 2 and Advocate Dhore point out that the Auditor has also found that in receipts issued by the Society, there are some inconsistencies and entry of the receipt in cash book was not matching with actual receipt. Possibility of using two sets of documents is therefore recorded by the Auditor. Findings in impugned order dated 31.3.2010 are not shown to be perverse at all. 6] Other contention is the petitioners were not office bearers when the alleged irregularities took place and thereafter there was a direction by Assistant 3 Registrar not to issue licence to members in default. The facts clearly show that after earlier orders of this Court in the matter an inquiry was conducted and in it categorical finding has been recorded that these 17 members were not in default. The body of petitioners has denied licences to these 17 members though readiness and willingness was expressed to issue licence to these members, in spite of that finding licences were not issued. Said readiness and willingness therefore was only a force to avoid any action. Not only this even before this Court today inconsistent stand are being taken by the petitioners. 7] I am not inclined to interfere with the matter in writ jurisdiction. Hence, the petition is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Ambulkar.