1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 354/2008 (Gondia Zilla Prathamik Shikshak Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit thro. its Secretary VERSUS Dist. Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies Gondia & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mr. A.H. Patil, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. T.R. Kankale, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-2. CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : APRIL 24, 2008. Heard. The counsel for the petitioner states that in the instant case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no.2, vide communication dated 17.09.2007 addressed to respondent no.3 Society, has communicated that while disbursing the loan, unless the no objection certificate is produced, the loan should not be disbursed. Similarly, there are certain other directions issued to the respondent no.3 society. The counsel for the petitioner states that in spite of the said communication issued by the respondent no.2, the respondent no.3 society is violating the directions issued by the respondent no.2 in the said communication, and therefore, the respondent no.2 may be directed to ensure 2 that the directions given in the said communication are followed by the respondent no.3 society. Mr. Kankale, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, states that if the said communication dated 17.09.2007 is still holding field and is not modified or altered at the later point of time, in that event, the respondent no.2 will ensure that respondent no.3 shall comply with the directions issued by respondent no.2 in the communication dated 17.09.2007. It is also contended that upon failure to comply with the directions by the respondent no.3 society, appropriate action according to law would be taken. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, nothing survives in the writ petition, the same is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE APTE