Wp 4971 of 2010 1 SSK/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4971 OF 2010 Sangappa Tammarao Patil & Ors. ....Petitioners Versus The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Amit Borkar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 4. Mr. Vishwanath Talkute, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr. Vineet Naik i/b. Mr. I. M. Khairdi, Advocate for the Interveners/Applicants in Civil Application No.1786 of 2010. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 13TH JULY, 2010. P.C.: Not on Board. Mentioned for urgent Production. Production allowed in view of urgency. 2. Heard Mr.Borkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Talkute, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and Mr.Naik, learned Counsel for the Intervenors. Wp 4971 of 2010 2 3. The Respondent No.1-Assistant Registrar by an order dated 30th December, 2009 appointed an administrator on Respondent No.3- Society under the provisions of section 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. This order was challenged by the Petitioners by filing an appeal being no.2 of 2010 before the Divisional Joint Registrar. Meanwhile, the Respondent No.2-Administrator had already taken charge of affairs of the Respondent No.3-Society. The Appellate Authority i.e. Divisional Joint Registrar on 21st April, 2010 granted stay to the order under section 78 of the M.C.S.Act, 1960. The Respondent No.3 thereafter, through its Secretary preferred a revision under section 154 of the M.C.S.Act, 1960 before the Hon’ble Minister of State for Co-operation and by the order impugned in the petition, the Revisional Authority set-aside the order of stay granted by the Appellate Authority. 4. As stated above, prior to filing of an appeal by the Petitioners, the Respondent No.2-Administrator had already taken charge of affairs of the Respondent No.3-Society and thereafter, election was declared. The election process is at advanced stage. The stage of nomination is already over and voting is scheduled on Sunday i.e. 18th July, 2010. 5. Mr. Borkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the administrator could not have been appointed under section 78 of the Wp 4971 of 2010 3 M.C.S.Act, 1960. He took me through the order passed by the Respondent No.1-Assistant Registrar and pointed out that the order being per-se illegal deserves to be quashed and set-aside. The Petitioners’ appeal against the order under section 78 of the M.C.S.Act, 1960 is already pending before the Appellate Court. The merits of the case will be considered by the Appellate Authority. If the Petitioners succeed, the Appellate Authority will set-aside the order under section 78 of the M.C.S.Act. Mr.Borkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners also pointed out that the Hon’ble Minister of State for Co- operation could not have exercised revisional jurisdiction at the instance of Secretary of Respondent No.3-Society. I am not impressed by this submission, in as much as under section 154 of the M.C.S. Act, the Revisional Authority can suo-motu exercise the jurisdiction. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the interest of justice will be subserved by passing the following order: 1. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune Division, Pune is directed to hear and dispose of the Petitioners’ Appeal No. 2 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Wp 4971 of 2010 4 2. Fresh elections to the Managing Committee of the Respondent No.3-Society shall be subject to the final outcome of the Appeal pending before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Pune Division, Pune. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of. (R. V. MORE, J.)