1wp-969-10 Lrs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.969/2010 Shri Vishvas Chintaman Nagare & ors ..Petitioners. V/s. Nashik, A.P.M.C.,and others ..Respondents. Mr Y.S.Jahagirdar, Sr.Advocate with Mr K.S.Patil i/b Mr P.N.Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr S.R.Nargolkar, A.G.P., for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.R.JOSHI,JJ DATED: 4TH FEBRUARY,2010 P.C.:- 1. By this petition the petitioners, who are elected members of the respondent No.1 Market Committee, are challenging the order dated 24th January,2010 passed by the District Deputy Registrar. It appears that a show cause notice has been issued to the members of respondent No.1 Market Committee asking them to show cause as to why they should not 2wp-969-10 be removed. That notice has been issued by the District Deputy Registrar,Co-operative Society. It appears that the petitioners had challenged that show cause notice by filling Writ Petition No. 7111/2009 before this court on the ground that they are not connected with the acts or misconduct which is alleged in the show cause notice because they were elected subsequently, as members of the Market Committee. That petition was disposed off by the learned Single Judge of this Court by his order dated 17th August, 2009 declining to set aside the show cause notice on that ground, but directing the Authority to deal with all the grounds of challenge raised by the petitioners in that regard while deciding the show cause notice. It appears that the petitioners without waiting for the District Deputy Registrar to pass his order pursuant to the show cause notice, made application before the District Deputy Registrar requesting him to discharge the show cause notice as against them on the same ground i.e., they are elected subsequently. That application has been rejected by the order dated 24.1.2010. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We do not find any error in the impugned order. Really speaking the issuance of show cause notice against the petitioners on the ground that they are subsequently elected was challenged by 3wp-969-10 the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 7111/2009 and that challenge was not entertained by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court has directed the District Deputy Registrar, who was to pass order pursuant to the show cause notice, to consider this challenge while making his order on the show cause notice. Therefore, there was no justification for the petitioners to again make an application before the District Deputy Registrar for the discharge of the show cause notice as against them. They should have waited till the District Deputy Registrar made his final order pursuant to the show cause notice. Reading of the order dated 24.1.10 shows that all that the District Deputy Registrar has stated that he cannot discharge the show cause notice against the petitioners, at this stage, because this Court has directed him to decide the objection raised by the petitioners to the show cause notice at the time of deciding the show cause notice. We find that the order made as against the petitioners is in consonance to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court referred to above. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere. Petition is hereby rejected. (JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH,J) (JUSTICE A.R.JOSHI,J)