1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4977 OF 2008 Anandrao Dattatraya Patil & ors. Petitioners vs. 1.Assistant Registrar for Cooperative Societies (Milk), Kolhapur & ors. Respondents Mr.P.D.Dalvi for the petitioners. Mrs.Bhende, AGP for respondents 1 to 4. Mr.S.P.Kadam for respondent no.6. CORAM : R.V. MORE,J. DATED : 10th July, 2008 P.C. Heard Mr.Dalvi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs.Bhende, the learned AGP for respondents 1 to 4 and Mr.S.P.Kadam. the learned counsel for respondent no.6. 2. The petitioners are the Managing Committee members of respondent no.7-society. They were removed from the Managing Committee and respondent no.5 came to be appointed as an Administrator under Section 78 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the said Act"). 3. The main ground on which an Administrator is appointed is that the petitioners failed to give bond 2 within a period of 15 days from the date of the election as required under Section 73 (1AB). 4. The petitioners thereafter filed an Appeal being Appeal No.6/2008 under Section 152 of the said Act before the Divisional Deputy Registrar (Milk) at Pune. It is the case of the petitioners that when they filed the Appeal, the officer was not available and, therefore, they approached the Divisional Joint Registrar (Milk) at Mumbai by way of Revision Application and in this Revision Application, stay was granted to the order passed under Section 78. Subsequently, respondent no.6 approached the Divisional Joint Registrar (Milk) and pointed out that there is no reason to interfere with the petitioners revision inasmuch as the Divisional Deputy Registrar, Pune was very much present at the time when the petitioners filed the Appeal. On this plea of respondent no.6, the learned Joint Registrar vacated the stay and, therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of present petition. 5. The fact remains that the petitioners Appeal being Appeal No.6/2008 challenging the order under Section 78 is still pending before the Divisional Deputy Registrar for Cooperative Societies (Milk) and the same is not disposed of. In that view of the matter, the present 3 petition can be disposed of by directing the Divisional Deputy Registrar (Milk), Pune to dispose of the petitioners Appeal being Appeal No.6/2008 as expeditiously as possible. 6. So far as the interim arrangement is concerned, Mr.Dalvi, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Administrator has not taken charge. This statement is denied by Mr.Kadam, the learned counsel for respondent no.6 and he tendered letter dated 5.7.2008 pointing out that respondent no.5 has already taken charge. In view of this controversy, I dispose of the petition by the following order: ORDER (i) The Divisional Deputy Registrar for Cooperative Societies (Milk), Pune is directed to hear and dispose of the petitioners Appeal being Appeal No.6/2008 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of three weeks from the receipt of this order. (ii) Mr.Dalvi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, undertakes to withdraw the Revision Application No.8/2008 which is pending before the Joint Registrar for Cooperative Societies (Milk), Mumbai. 4 (iii) If Respondent No.5 has taken charge, then he will act as an Administrator during the pendency of the Appeal before the Appellate Authority and if he has not taken charge, then status-quo as of today be maintained. 7. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. [R.V. [R.V. [R.V. MORE,J.] MORE,J.] MORE,J.]