1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8555 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner Mr. P.P. More, AGP for respondent. Mr. N.D. Sonawane, Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & R.M. BORDE,JJ. DATE : 23rd February, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to respondent No.2 - District Deputy Registrar to proceed further and complete the proceedings initiated by issuing show cause notice under Section 78(1) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960 dated 5/6/2007. Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner, in all fairness, informed the court that after issuance of this notice, fresh elections of the managing committee ( for short, “M.C.”) were held and that the newly elected managing committee is holding charge of the society as of today. Despite this, he submits that 11 members, who were also members of the earlier managing committee got elected once again and 2 grt/- in view thereof, respondent No.2 can still proceed against those members on the basis of the show cause notice dated 5/6/2007, so as to disqualify them, from being members of the newly elected committee, as provided for in the proviso to clause(b) of Section 78(1) of the M.C.S. Act. 3. There is no dispute that though notice under Section 78(1) of the M.C.S. Act was issued in June 2007, the Registrar did not proceed further and no order of removal, either of the M.C. or its member/s, was passed. In other words, before order under Section 78 of the M.C.S. Act was passed, fresh elections were held and 27 new members of the M.C. have been elected. In the circumstances we find no merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and we are satisfied that with the passage of time, the writ petition has become infructuous. . 4. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. Civil application no. 14194/2010 stands disposed of. [R.M. BORDE,J] [ D.B. BHOSALE, J.] 3