1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4350 OF 2009. Sopanrao Onkarrao Sathe -: versus :- Divisional Joint Registrar, Co.op. Societies and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : APRIL 20, 2010. Heard Shri P.C. Madkholkar with Shri K.V. Deshmukh, learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1, Shri U. Dastane, learned counsel for respondent no.2, Shri A.P. Chaware, learned counsel for respondent no.3. None appears for respondent no.4. Shri Gopal Mishra, learned counsel has filed application for intervention. 2. Contention of petitioner is, as the law permits Chairman to convene meeting, because of provisions of Section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, he is also authorized to cancel it before it is held. In exercise of that power, a meeting earlier convened on 07.08.2009 as per notice dated 01.08.2009 was canceled on 06.08.2009. Inspite of that cancellation, on 07.08.2009 the present members conducted meeting under the Chairmanship of Vice 2 Chairman of A.P.M.C. and passed resolutions. The proceedings dated 07.08.2009 at its beginning record the fact of cancellation of that meeting on 06.08.2009. It is therefore urged that the proceedings conducted on 07.08.2009 are illegal and unsustainable. It is further urged that the proceedings were then assailed by the petitioner in Revision No. 4/2009 under Section 43 read with Section 41[1] of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1963 before the Divisional Joint Registrar and that authority has found cancellation bad, and the meeting was held to be lawful and as the authority found that there is no power with the Chairman to cancel the meeting once it is convened. The petitioner specifically points out that on 10.08.2009, very same agenda was placed before the meeting convened by the Chairman and in that meeting 16 Directors of A.P.M.C. Present did not pass any fresh resolution, because of meeting dated 07.08.2009. 3. Shri Dastane, learned counsel for respondent no.2 states that the petitioner claims to have conducted meeting subsequently and in it the proceeding dated 07.08.2009 are canceled. According to him in view of this act, the challenge by the petitioner in present Writ Petition need not be considered and petitioner has become infructuous. He states that the respondent have challenged that meeting and its proceedings again before the Divisional Joint Registrar, and those proceedings are stayed by that Authority. 3 4. Learned A.G.P. as also Shri Chawre, learned counsel for respondents, support the impugned order. Shri Mishra, learned counsel for intervenor is supporting the impugned order. 5. The facts clearly show that in the face of meeting dated 07.08.2009, the petitioner himself in his capacity as Chairman, convened another meeting on 10.08.2009 and 16 Directors of A.P.M.C. present in that meeting has not passed any fresh resolution on same agenda, because of resolution earlier passed on those subjects on 07.08.2009. Said proceedings ae not produced by petitioner. But it appears that on 10.08.2009 indirectly proceedings conducted on 07.08.2009 have been ratified and accepted by the A.P.M.C. 6. The act of petitioner in reconvening the meeting on 10.08.2009 however shows that there were no malafides. The observations that he canceled meeting on 07.08.2009 because of some wrong or ill intentions, are therefore , unsustainable. Those observations as contained in the impugned order of Divisional Registrar are therefore quashed and set aside. 7. The questions whether the provisions of Section 21 of the A.P.M.C. Act are applicable in such situation and hence as Chairman – Petitioner could have canceled the meeting scheduled on 07.08.2009 by notice dated 06.08.2009 need not be gone into in these facts. The said question is therefore, left open for consideration at appropriate stage. With this, Writ Petition is partly allowed 4 and is disposed of. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.