1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6115 OF 2009 Ganesh s/o Asaram Joshi ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr A.G. Talhar, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr N.B. Khandare, Govt. Pleader for respondent - State. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 14th September, 2009 PER COURT : This is a petition filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of order dated 23.3.2009 and the meeting which was held on 20.12.2008. 2. The facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this petition may briefly be stated thus :- The petitioner claims to be a member of respondent no.6 Bank being a share-holder. According to the petitioner, the Board of Directors of respondent no.6 society did not submit the bond as is contemplated under section 73 (1AB) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 within a period of 15 days and consequently the elected Board of Directors was disqualified by operation of law and an Administrator came to be appointed on the respondent no.6 society. Thereafter by an order dated 30.9.2008 an administrative committee came to be 2 appointed. On 17.10.2008 the respondent no.6 Bank submitted an application to respondent no.8 Bank for merger and accordingly on 20.11.2008 the respondent no.8 Bank gave its consent for merger of respondent no.6 Bank. Consequently on 25.11.2008 the Administrator of the respondent no.6 Bank submitted an application to the respondent no. 3 i.e. Commissioner of Co-operation and requested for appointment of respondent no.8 Bank as an Administrator on the respondent no.6 Bank. The District Deputy Registrar also recommended by his communication dated 28.11.2008 for appointment of respondent no.8 Bank as an Administrator. It also appears that certain dispute came to be filed before the Co-operative Court at Jalgaon challenging the merger of respondent no.6 Bank in respondent no.8 Bank. Initially the Co-operative Court granted an order of status quo. According to the petitioner, though the order of status quo was in operation, a general body meeting was called and it was resolved that respondent no.6 Bank should be amalgamated in respondent no.8 Bank and further steps in accordance with law be initiated. Accordingly the District Deputy Registrar passed an order appointing respondent no.8 as an Administrator on the respondent no.6 Bank. A proposal of merger came to be submitted to the Reserve Bank of India. The petitioner, it appears claims to have submitted an objection and despite his objection the action of the amalgamation of respondent no.6 Bank in respondent no.8 Bank was carried out. 3. At the outset, we may state that the petitioner had not filed dispute but one Ramchandra Pannalal Lathi had filed a dispute with the Co- operative Court. The petitioner in this petition does not disclose as to what had happened to the dispute which was filed by Ramchandra Pannalal Lathi. The petitioner impugns the action of merger on three grounds. The first ground being that the merger is ex facie illegal without following due process and the second ground is that the procedure as contemplated under rule 16 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 has not been followed. It is also alleged that no notice of the 3 general body meeting was received and despite the absence of 2/3rd majority the resolution came to be passed. The third ground is akin to the earlier two grounds. 4. The entire petition is bereft of the necessary details in respect of the general body meeting and the quorum which was present at the general body meeting. In the body of the petition no foundation has been laid in respect of the aforesaid grounds. Similarly, no foundation is laid in the petition in respect of the non-observance of the necessary Rules. Apart from that, since a dispute is pending in the Co-operative Court, we decline to interfere in this petition. This petition is accordingly summarily dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/wp6115.09