-: 1 :- wp-1973/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1973 OF 2011 Vikas Baburao Rane & Ors. ..Petitioners. Versus P.S.Punde, Divisional Jt. Registrar Co-op. Societies & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Sanjay D. Thokade for the petitioner. Mr. H. D. Patil for respondent no.4. Mr. Ambar A. Joshi and Mr. Prathamesh A. Gokhale for respondent nos. 3 & 6. Mr. R.M. Patne, AGP for respondent No.1, 2 & 7. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : March 9, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay D. Thokade, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. H. D. Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.4, Mr. Ambar A. Joshi for respondent nos.3, 5 & 6 and Mr. R.M. Patne, AGP for respondent No.1, 2 & 7. Mr. Joshi undertakes to file vakaltnama on behalf of respondent no.5. 2. The petitioners got elected as members of the managing committee of Mohan Mahal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd in an election, which was held in the year 2008. Respondent no.2 – Deputy Registrar by his order dated 11/12/2010 superseded the said managing committee under section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 [for short, “the srp -: 2 :- wp-1973/11 MCS Act”] and appointed Administrative Committee consisting of respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5. 3. The petitioners’ being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent no.2 under section 78 of the MCS Act, preferred an appeal under section 152 of the MCS Act, being Appeal No. 10 of 2011 before respondent no.1 on 15/2/2011. Respondent no.1 by his order dated 15/2/2011 granted ad-interim stay to the execution and operation of order passed by respondent no.2– Deputy Registrar and appeal was made returnable on 24/2/2011. On 24/2/2011, respondent nos.3, 4 & 5 appeared before respondent no.1 and contested the petitioners’ appeal by filing say. On that day respondent no. 6 filed an intervention application. On that day itself, respondent no.2 vacated the ad- interim stay granted earlier in favour of the petitioners and allowed the intervention application of respondent no.6. Appeal was adjourned and fixed for hearing on 22/3/2011. 4. It is contention of the petitioners that a copy of the reply filed by respondent nos.3 to 5 as well as a copy of the intervention application filed by respondent no.6 was given to them on 24/2/2011 itself and therefore they sought time to go through the same and put up their case. However, the request for grant of time to go through the reply and intervention -: 3 :- wp-1973/11 application was rejected and impugned order was passed. 5. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3, 5 & 6 and Mr. Patil for respondent no.4 denied the allegation and submitted that the petitioners were in fact heard on 24/2/2011 and thereafter the impugned order was passed. 6. The petitioners being aggrieved by the impugned order has already preferred a revision before the Minister for Co- operation under section 154 of MCS Act. They also filed an application for stay. Since no orders are passed in the revision or on the stay application, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of this writ petition challenging the impugned order. 7. It is the apprehension of the petitioners that if the Minister does not decide their revision or stay application at the earliest, respondent no.2 will implement the order passed under section 78 of the MCS Act and hand over charge of the society to respondent nos.3, 4 & 5, though the petitioners’ appeal is pending before respondent no.1 and same, in these circumstances, will render infructuous. 8. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3, 5 & 6 submitted that if the order passed under section 78 of the MCS Act is stayed, the petitioners may -: 4 :- wp-1973/11 tamper with record of the society. In response to this submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has filed an undertaking of petitioner no.1 that the record will be preserved till the final disposal of appeal. Petitioner no.1 has also given undertaking to hand over the said record to the Administrative Committee in case appeal preferred by the petitioners is dismissed and order passed by respondent no.2 under section 78 of the MCS Act is finally upheld. The undertaking is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. 9. Learned counsel for the respective parties stated that respondent no.1 has kept the petitioners’ appeal for hearing on 22/3/2011. Though the order under section 78 of the MCS Act was passed as long as back on 11/2/2011, the fact remains that till today the Administrative Committee has not taken charge of the society affairs from the petitioners. In other words, the said order is not yet implemented. In these circumstances, without going into the question whether or not the petitioners were given opportunity at the time of vacating the interim order, in my opinion, the ends of justice will be sub-served by directing respondent no.1 to decide the petitioners’ appeal on the next date of hearing itself, i.e., on 22/3/2011. Parties appearing in the writ petition undertake that before respondent no.1 they will -: 5 :- wp-1973/11 not ask for any adjournment. I am also of the opinion that during the pendency of appeal, the interim order granted earlier by respondent no.1 deserves to be continued. Hence, I pass following order. -: O R D E R :- (1) Respondent no.1 is directed to decide the petitioners’ appeal as far as possible on 22/3/2011 itself. If for any unavoidable reasons it could not be decided on the said day, the same shall be decided within next two weeks therefrom. (2) Ad-interim stay granted by respondent no.1 on 15/2/2011 shall remain in force till the disposal of appeal and in case the decision of appeal is adverse to the petitioners, the stay shall further remain in force for the period of one week from the date of communication of order to the petitioners. (3) The statement of Mr. Thokade, learned counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of appeal the petitioners in their capacity as managing committee members of the Society will not take any policy decision is accepted. (4) The undertaking of Mr. Thokade, learned counsel for -: 6 :- wp-1973/11 the petitioners that the petitioners will withdraw the revision filed before the Minister is also accepted. (5) With the aforesaid observations writ petition is disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.)