IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 51 OF 2010 SHRI SAMEER B. PALEKAR AND 8 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S. D. Padiyar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V. Rodrigues, Addl. Government Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 9th April, 2010 P.C: Heard. 2. It is not disputed that the Petitioners are the members of the Managing Committee of Janata Consumers Co-operative Society Ltd., having been elected from 11/12/2009 for the period of five years. 3. It appears that there were certain irregularities committed by the said Society for the period from 1/4/2005 to 31/1/2006, for which a show cause notice was issued. Admittedly, the Petitioners herein were in no way responsible for the misdeeds, if any, for the period from 1/4/2005 to 31/1/2006. There is also no dispute that a show cause notice was issued to the Managing Committee members who were managing the said Society during the said period. It may be true that certain irregularities could also have been noticed during the tenure of the present petitioners, but admittedly, no show cause notice has been issued to them. 4. Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners as members of the present Managing Committee have already completed the audit for the said period from 1/4/2005 to 31/1/2006. In case the present Petitioners were not given any show cause notice for the irregularities committed for the said period from 1/4/2005 to 31/1/2006, they could not have been removed from office for the said irregularities for the said period of 2005-06. In case there is any irregularities noticed, after the present Petitioners have taken charge, the authority concerned, would be free to issue a show cause notice to them and take action against them in accordance with law. 5. Needless to observe, the Petitioners, were not the members of the Managing Committee for the year 2005-2006. No show cause notice could have been issued to them for their removal for the said period, when alleged irregularities were committed. To that extent, the impugned order cannot be sustained at all. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 8/1/2010 is hereby set aside with liberty as aforesaid. 7. Petition disposed of on the above terms. N. A. BRITTO, J. ap/-