IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PIL NO. 150 OF 2004 B.J.Modi & Ors.... ...... ......Petitioners V/s Union of India & Ors. ...... ...Respondents. Mr.G.S.Godbole, Adv. For the petitioners. Mr.P.M.Patil, AGP for the State. Mr.Girish Kulkarni with Ms.Rutuja Ambekar, Adv. For the respondent Nos,. 1 & 3. Mr.P.N.Joshi, Adv. For respondent No.7. Mr.Ghadge i/by A.S.Desai, Adv. For respondent No.8. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI AND A.P.DESHPANDE, JJ. 9/4/08 PC: This petition can be disposed of at this stage as it is pending in this Court for the last four years. It may be pointed out that the respondent No.2-Reserve Bank of India though served has not appeared. Therefore this order is passed in their absence. Counsel for other respondents are present. The main reliefs claimed in the writ petition were : 1 “(a) That this Hon' ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing respondent Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6 to forthwith take further appropriate actions u/s.71 to 73 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 or Section 81 to 83 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 on the basis of special report prepared by the respondent No.6 u/s. 69 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. (b) That this Hon' ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 herein to forthwith take appropriate further action u/s.77(6) and (7) of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 in respect of Special Audit of respondent No.7-bank. (c) That this Hon' ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the respondent No.2 herein to forthwith take appropriate action under the provisions of Banking Regulation Act in respect of Special Enquiry Report submitted by the Respondent No.6 u/s.69 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, and the inspection report dated 16.6.2004 being Exhibit “C” to this 2 Petition.” 2. With respect to the first relief i.e. Prayer (a) it is contended that the Registrar has passed an order in terms of section 83 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. The petitioner is not satisfied with the order but concedes that the order is appealable and therefore but he may be given liberty to challenge the said order by way of appeal. Liberty is granted as we feel that the appeal would be more comprehensive remedy for the petitioner than the present writ petition. If an appeal is preferred within a period of 15 days and if the appeal is time barred the time be extended because the petitioner was pursuing the remedy before this Court. As far as prayer (b) is concerned it is also conceded that the special audit has been conducted under section 77 of the act and learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is required under law that after special audit is conducted consequential steps have to be taken either to accept or take appropriate steps in pursuance of the report and the authorities are bound to consider the report and take appropriate actions on the basis of the report. Therefore this relief can be granted because the special audit has already been conducted and respondents are directed to take all consequential steps in accordance with law within a period of three months from today. The third relief i.e. Prayer (c) concerns with Reserve Bank of India which is not before this Court though served. It is submitted that the enquiry was conducted by Reserve Bank of India into the affairs of the Society and the report has 3 been obtained by Reserve Bank of India which is communicated to the petitioner. Since enquiry has been conducted by Reserve Bank of India and the report has been received by it we direct respondent No.2-Reserve Bank of India to consider the report and take appropriate action within three months. Writ petition stands disposed of. In view of disposal of main writ petition civil application does not survive and the same also stands disposed of accordingly. 9.4.08 (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (A.P.DESHPANDE, J.) 4