1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.2514 Of 2004 Meera Bhimraj Patare ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra And Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. P.S. Dighe, holding for Shri. R.L. Kute, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. V.B. Ghatge, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Shri. N.V. Gavare, Advocate, for respondent Nos.6 and 7. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE: 27th JULY, 2010 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner claims to be a founder member of the respondent No.5 - bank. 2 3) The petitioner contends that without authority of law the respondent No.5 - bank had purchased a constructed building for a consideration of Rs.37,00,000/- without there being any resolution passed by the Board of Directors and without following necessary / mandatory provisions. Therefore proceedings were initiated. The authorities ought to have proceeded ahead with proceedings initiated under Sec.78 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. The proceedings were unfortunately withdrawn. Therefore the petitioner has approached this Court. 4) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.6 and 7 submitted that full transparency was followed. The building was valued at more than 37 Lakhs rupees. A Resolution was passed for purchasing the building and after following the procedure the 3 building was purchased for establishing a branch and accordingly the bank is functioning in the said building as of now. The counsel further submitted that the petitioner was defeated twice and with a political vengeance the petitioner is making allegations in this writ petition. 5) The writ petition is pending since the year 2003. The incident is in respect of initiation of action under Section 78 of the Act. The Board of Directors of that time is also changed. There is new Board of Director functioning now. After the explanation submitted the authorities thought it fit not to proceed with the proceedings under section 78 of the Act. 6) Considering all the facets of the case, the period elapsed since the year 2003, 4 we are not inclined to exercise our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution India. 7) The writ petition is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (K.K. TATED, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.2514.04