1 95 wp.6968.11 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6968 OF 2011 Vasantdada Patil Health Foundation Ajara and another. ... Petitioners Versus Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Bank Ltd. and others. ... Respondents ­­­­­ Mr. S.A.Sawant for the Petitioners. Mr. S.S.Patwardhan for the Respondent No.1. Mrs. M.S.Bane, AGP for the State. ­­­­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 26 th September, 2011. P.C. 1 Leave to amend for correcting the cause title for showing that the Respondent No.1 is represented by the Liquidator. Amendment shall be carried out within a period of three weeks from today. Mr.Patwardhan waives service for the Respondent No.1. He states that he has been appointed by the Liquidator. 2 The Respondent No.1 – Bank filed an application under 2 95 wp.6968.11 Section 101 of the Maharashtra Co­operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). It appears that during the pendency of the said application, liquidation proceedings were initiated in respect of the Respondent No.1 and Liquidator has been appointed. An application was made by the Petitioners, who are the opponents in the application praying for rejection of the application on the ground that the Respondent No.1 – Bank has now gone in liquidation. The said application was rejected by holding that the Liquidator can continue the application. Against the order of the Assistant Registrar rejecting the said application, a revision application under Section 154 of the said Act was filed before the the Divisional Joint Registrar. The said revision application has been dismissed. 3 I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. The appointment of the Liquidator during the pendency of the proceedings of the application under Section 101 of the said Act made by the Respondent No.1 – Bank will not be a ground to dismiss the application. It is obvious that now only the Liquidator of the 3 95 wp.6968.11 Respondent No.1 can prosecute the said application in accordance with law. Subject to this observation, it is not necessary to interfere with the impugned orders. 4 Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected. [ A.S.OKA, J ]